Not on the radar? He leads in polling among likely Iowa caucus-goers:
In normal usage, it should be “Clinton and Obama”, but that rule is overridden by the potential for confusion.
To expound upon this, it is VERY rare for the situation in this coming election to occur. We have a two-term President, who has served all of those terms, whose Vice-President is not even vying for the nomination. I may be wrong, but I think you have to go all the way back to Woodrow Wilson and his Vice-President in 1920, Thomas R. Marshall, to find the same situation. It’s very difficult to make comparisons to elections back then, because the nominating conventions were such a different kettle of fish, then.
Not really certain that we can predict exactly what will happen this time around.
I’d say being on the Wilson administration wasn’t a bonus; note that the nominated Democrat in 1920 was the Governor of Ohio, James Cox, chosen on the 41st ballot after the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General were both unable to get anywhere.
But that’s going back into the political dark ages and it doesn’t bode well for any of the current administration’s insiders. :eek:
Back when Bush first chose Cheney, I thought he’d eventually dump him and pick a new VP to finish out the term then run for President.
Has that ever been done? Ford comes close, but isn’t really the same thing.
Edited to add: How much pressure would a new candidate come under now if they picked a running mate who wasn’t going to run post-VP?
Vice-President Alben Barkley ran for the nomination in 1952, but lost the nomination to Adlai Stevenson. So 1952 was the last general election without an incumbent, but not the last one at the nomination stage.
As others noted, the last two presidential races without an incumbent running were 1920 and 1952.
In 1920, Wilson was unable to run again because of his health and he had also faced some major political defeats in his last two years of office. Vice President Marshall, who had been a long shot Presidential candidate in 1912, had been a marginal figure in Wilson’s administration and apparently was never considered for and did not seek the nomination in 1920.
In 1952, Truman’s reputation and public approval was at a record low and he therefore decided not to run for a third term (he was the last President who would have been eligible to do so). Vice President Barkley did seek the nomination but was defeated by Adlai Stevenson.
It’s never been done, in part because this option didn’t exist prior to the passage of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, there was no way to fill a vacancy in the Vice-Presidency until the next general election. Since it was enacted, the only times it could have happened (two-term president finishing his term and wanting to pick a successor) would have been Reagan (Bush Sr.) and Clinton (Gore).
Another bit of trivia: Given the current line-up on the Republican side, it looks like this will be the first election since 1964 that doesn’t have the name Nixon, Dole, or Bush somewhere on the ticket.
Franklin Roosevelt replaced his vice president twice. In 1940, he replaced John Nance Gardner with Henry Wallace. In 1944, he replaced Wallace with Truman.
Truman’s name was on the ballot in the New Hampshire primary in 1952, but he was defeated by Estes Kefauver and withdrew from the race. Don’t know how hard he was campaigning before then.
True, but he didn’t dump a Veep during the term - Garner and Wallace both served out their terms.
When Roosevelt picked Truman in 1944, he knew there was a good chance he was picking his successor, given the state of FDR’s health, so that comes close to jsgoddess’ question.
As to the OP: Early in the race for the 1992 nom, I seem to remember Bob Kerrey, Paul Tsongas, & Bill Clinton being three big candidates. But this early? I’m not sure. I think Kerrey was bigger than the other two, but then fell out of it.
A country which has prided itself on opportunity ,finally has a woman and a black deep in the mix. Even though we have a conservative Democratic woman she is a big story. Obama has to get over a lack of national experience ,but he is a serious candidate.
The question is whether American bigotry against blacks and women will factor.We only can speculate,we wont know until the votes are counted.
There should be international interest to see if our bad side comes out.
While it’s wonderful to see democracy taken so seriously, jeez guys, it’s 18 months to the election!
That’s the point of the OP.