Not unprecedented, and certainly allowable.
What would be the benefit for Hillary, or for the party?
There are two types of VP choices – experienced party veterans to shore up a seemingly less experienced presidential candidate (Biden, Cheney, Bush I), or young up-and-comers to serve as future standard bearers and presidential candidates for the party (Gore, Quayle, etc.) with an experienced Presidential candidate.
Hillary fits much more into the second category with her experience at State and in the Senate (and as First Lady), so you can mark my words here – if she wins the nomination, she will choose a relatively young Democratic Congressperson/Senator/Governor as her VP candidate, and very likely a Hispanic man.
Was not aware of those, thank you.
Good point, and indeed most running-mate choices I can think of in recent memory have been exactly those kinds of balancing acts or gap-fillers. But when you go too far towards choosing a candidate based on that kind of mindless adherence to prescription instead of looking at a person’s genuine qualifications, the results can be amusingly counterproductive – “get me a youngster” produces Dan “potatoe” Quayle, “get me a real conservative lunatic” produces Paul Ryan, and the classic of them all, “get me a woman” produces Sarah Palin! 
My comment was actually prompted by my curious skimming of the current list of Democratic governors and senators, and I didn’t see anyone who would really stand out in a helpful way. Elizabeth Warren would be great, sure, but (a) she wouldn’t accept, and (b) would shift the ticket too far left in the present political climate. The one thing Biden could offer was a sort of reassuring continuity in direct juxtaposition to whatever Republican nutcase managed to crawl to the top of the heap.
THen just pick someone who would make a good President. Tons of Democrats who fit that bill: Howard Dean, Mark Warner, Evan Bayh, Deval Patrick, Cory Booker, Bill Richardson, Steve Beshear, Mark Dayton, Jack Reed…
Some of them are good and some of them are neoliberal Third Way cucks.
Joe Biden would probably be a better president than all who have announced, from either side. Funny that.
Biden’s not running. Even before Beau died, it was clear that he wasn’t putting together even the rudiments of a campaign team.
He might decide to run if Hillary was assassinated or incapacitated, but that’s not something anybody’s making plans around.
What if Sanders looks like he’ll be the nominee? Would the Democratic Party tolerate that?
If enough Democrats vote for Sanders to make him the nominee, why wouldn’t the “Democratic Party” (by which I assume you mean the party leadership) tolerate that?
In his defense, when you view everything through such heavily liberal-colored glasses, it’s hard to discern fact from fiction.
Because they like winning. Sanders can beat the national version of Martha Coakley. Doesn’t mean he can beat a Republican.
I’m not sure if Sanders is a great general election candidate, but I think he’d be a cinch to beat Cruz, Trump, Jindal, Huckabee, Santorum, Carson, and probably several more of the current Republican candidates. And I think he’d have a chance against Bush or Kasich. A milquetoast, uncharismatic northeastern liberal like Kerry came very close to beating W, after all. Bernie would only need to win a few states beyond the ‘blue wall’ to win.
If Sanders got the most delegates, the party wouldn’t shoot him down.
But that’s extremely unlikely to happen. Dean was doing a lot better than Sanders at this point in '04, with similar messaging, and he flamed out pretty quick against much weaker competition.
I’m not convinced that Hillary Clinton is stronger competition than a large field of viable Democrats. The benefits of a large field are that some turn out to be stronger than expected, others turn out to be weaker.
The reason there isn’t a large field now is because the other viable candidates don’t think Clinton can be beaten. Given Sanders’ Iowa and New Hampshire poll numbers, Biden, Warren, and a few high profile Senators must be rethinking that assumption. But even if they can’t decide until after NH, sure, it’s tough for a candidate to come in that late and win. Unless they are a big name backed to the hilt by the national party. Sanders=Eugene McCarthy. He will not be allowed to be the nominee if there is anything the DNC can do about it. If Sanders wins IA and NH, Al Gore, Joe Biden, Liz Warren, and even Howard Dean will find their phones ringing off the hook.
I think it’s pretty clear she is. Beating one candidate with a big lead is a lot harder than catching up to 3 candidates with very small leads.
I’m fine with a large field, and I’d be happy if more Democratic candidates came out.
Unless that candidate’s support is based mainly on name recognition. As smarter people than me put it, her support is a mile wide and an inch deep. An assertion I got made fun of for in the Clinton thread a couple of months ago. Not so funny now that Bernie Sanders is within striking distance in the first two primary states.
Imagine how well Joe Biden would be doing if he was in the race right now.
Right. But Hillary’s high support is from most Democrats believing that she was a good Secretary of State, represents Democratic values well, and has a good chance of beating the Republican candidate.
We’ll see, but I doubt it.
What “striking distance”? 20 to 45 points in Iowa is not close to “striking distance”, and I’m not sure if 10 to 30 in NH is either.
Probably running 2nd or 3rd.
19 down in IA:
8 down in NH:
The 32 point Clinton lead is now obviously an outlier. Three other polls have Sanders within 8-12.
Even with such cherry-picking, that’s a massive lead for Hillary in IA, and a large lead for Hillary in NH.
Why are you so set upon the idea that Democrats don’t like Hillary? Poll after poll has shown that Democrats like her quite a bit.
If all you’re saying is that there’s some chance she won’t win the nomination, then fine – maybe she won’t. But right now, she’s got a huge lead. I see no reason to believe her lead is getting fragile – by all the polling, it’s still very large, and her support among Democrats is still very strong.
Biden’s run for President twice before. He didn’t exactly set the hustings on fire in either instance.
Two things:
-
Even if we postulate that Sanders=Eugene McCarthy, there’s no Bobby Kennedy here. I think well of Gore, Biden, Warren, and Dean, but the only candidate in this race with anything like Bobby’s appeal is Hillary Clinton.
-
The days when a candidate could jump into the race after the NH primary like RFK did in 1968, and have the remotest chance at winning, are long gone. Al Gore, Joe Biden, Liz Warren, and Howard Dean know this.
Then unless O’Malley can be an alternative, the party courts disaster. Sanders is attracting the biggest crowds and is fast gaining on Clinton. He’ll get McGoverned in a general election.