Obama's VP

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by citizenzen, Aug 17, 2012.

  1. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #1
    Will Obama stick with Biden?

    Or is this an opportunity for Hillary to get in position for the next presidential election?

    Or ...?
     
  2. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #2
    Selecting Hillary would charge the right wing up even more. Biden hasn't been as bad as I thought he would be, although I'm sure Obama has wanted to give him a beat down a few times.
     
  3. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #3
    I would say stick with Biden, changing running mates at this point would probably do more harm than good.
     
  4. citizenzen thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #4
    That's what I would guess to. My impression—guaranteed 100% wrong—is that Obama is feeling relatively comfortable with the way things stand right now, and is not likely to rock the boat, especially with a figure as polarizing as Hillary.

    Hillary would be 68 years old in 2016. Perhaps her time has come and gone.

    But couldn't Obama use this opportunity to inject new blood into the race, and prime somebody's chances for the next election? I doubt Biden could ever be a serious candidate for president. He is already 69 years old. Wouldn't it serve the Democratic party for him to step aside and let the next generation of leadership establish itself?

    IMO, If he was really a bold leader, Obama would move in that direction.
     
  5. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #5
    Joe Biden is unassailable, that is why the Republicans hate him. They cannot get a handful. Yeah, he may make inadvisable comments, but nothing seems to last. He is kind of a likeable buffoon, like Reagan, there is no practical reason to fire him.
     
  6. mgguy macrumors 6502

    mgguy

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2006
    #6
    To think Biden is but a heartbeat away from being President--chilling. What does this say about Obama's judgement in keeping him as a running mate?
     
  7. Coleman2010 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Location:
    NYC
    #7
    Yes he should stick with Biden. Why shouldn't he? What makes Biden gaff prone is he is very approachable, relatable, and tells people the truth.

    But in politics that's considered a detriment.
     
  8. Heilage macrumors 68030

    Heilage

    Joined:
    May 1, 2009
    #8
    I have to be honest, I haven't really heard anything from Biden to gather an opinion. He seems very non-intrusive.
     
  9. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #9
    I think it would hurt them a lot more than it would help. If Biden had stood down earlier in the summer and said he didn't want to run for VP again then maybe it would have been a good thing, but now he's said a few dumb things and Obama's backed him up the Republicans would use any switch to paint Obama as indecisive and not sticking with what he's said.
     
  10. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #10
    Why? Biden is innocuous and clean as a whistle. Maybe that's what scares you? BTW- Obama has had no scandals other than the birth certificate thing. I know, it's hard to be a conservative, especially when your front runner was involved with Bain Capital.
     
  11. macquariumguy macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    Sarasota FL
    #11
    Of course he will. They won in 2008 and are well ahead in 2012, why would they rock the boat?
     
  12. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #12
    Exactly.

    The only possible reason to replace him as VP would be to groom someone to run for the Dems in 2016. But as others pointed out, that advantage is greatly outweighed by the risk of changing the ticket.

    That his judgment is infinitely better than that of the guy who picked Paul Ryan?
     
  13. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #13
    And Paul Ryan is also gay :eek::eek:
     
  14. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #14
    Hee hee.

    Even if that were true, that's not the facet of Ryan that worries me. Frankly, it's his looks. With that permanent five o'clock shadow and that weird widow's peak in his hair...I think this is what he'll look like in about 20 years. :p
     
  15. citizenzen thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #15
    The boat rocking would be to set the stage for the next election.

    Biden's 69. Clinton's 68.

    Who's the next heir apparent for the Democrats?

    Why not give that person an opportunity to establish credentials for 2016?
     
  16. NewbieCanada macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    #16
    The record of VPs becoming successful presidents is not great.

    Cheney - didn't run
    Gore - lost (well won, but had election stolen)
    Quayle - Too stupid to be nominated over George Bush
    Bush Sr. - one term president
    Mondale - defeated
    Ford - defeated
    Agnew - criminal
    Humphrey - defeated
    Johnson - one term, didn't run facing certain defeat
    Nixon - defeated (first time)
    Truman - didn't run for a second term (although he served most of FDR's final term. And even so, we're talking over 60 years ago.

    Arguably picking someone as VP is setting them up for failure as a presidential candidate, not success.

    (My apologies if I missed someone or have the order a bit wrong. Just going from memory)
     
  17. malman89 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    May 29, 2011
    Location:
    Michigan
    #17
    Between those two? Clinton, obviously. Biden isn't that personable. He's a great glue guy as a VP, but I don't think anyone in their right mind would push him to be the party leader in a huge election like 2016.

    It'll either be Clinton or someone younger, but with plenty of experience and clout.
     
  18. citizenzen thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #18
    "Successful" is an interesting qualifier.

    But here's the list of presidents who were once vice president ...

    I'll grant you that it's not the normal path to the presidency, but it still seems to me to be a somewhat lost opportunity to establish a younger, up-and-comer.
     
  19. NewbieCanada macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    #19
    Successful electorally, of course. We could spent the rest of our lives debating who was better or worse as president. But if we look at presidents elected twice (or more) we have

    W. Bush - never VP
    Clinton - never VP
    Reagan - never VP
    Nixon (gap of two terms before being elected following a defeat)
    F.D. Roosevelt - never VP
    Woodrow Wilson - never VP
    Grover Cleveland - never VP
    Ulysses S. Grant - never VP
    Andrew Jackson - never VP
    James Monroe - never VP
    James Madison - never VP
    Thomas Jefferson - VP
    George Washington - never VP (had a damn good excuse, of course)

    So if we're looking for presidents who were elected to and served two terms immediately following their term as VP, we have Jefferson.
     
  20. citizenzen thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #20
    I think we're focusing on the wrong thing here—though in a forum it's hard to say what is the right or wrong thing to focus on.

    My point is that there isn't any obvious heir apparent to Obama, though it could be pointed out that Obama himself came out of "nowhere" to establish himself as the front runner.

    Perhaps there doesn't need to any established successor. It's also possible that the Democratic convention will help to elevate the next generation of leaders for the Democratic party.

    But I see Biden as a lost opportunity. His political career isn't going any further. I'd prefer to use this moment to spring someone else into the spotlight. I believe it would help to inject a little more enthusiasm into the ticket and give that person the credentials to run for office in four years.

    What about U.S. Representative, Debbie Wasserman Schultz?
     
  21. NewbieCanada macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    #21
    I don't think it's the wrong issue. Historically a successor does not come from being VP and arguably the next Democratic presidential candidate will benefit from not being tied to the previous eight years even if Obama's presidency is deemed to be a successful one.

    And in the event Obama were to lose the election, being his VP candidate would destroy the chances of his running mate for 2016
     
  22. niuniu macrumors 68020

    niuniu

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    A man of the people. The right sort of people.
    #22
    Biden flies under the radar overseas so I couldn't hazard an opinion. Does Bill Clinton's popularity spill over unto his wife in the US? I hear he's favourable with nearly 2/3 Americans..
     
  23. Coleman2010 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Location:
    NYC
    #23
    Clinton is going to run. I think 2012 will be Clinton vs Christie.
     
  24. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #24
    Palin being potentially a heartbeat away was chilling. Biden would be okay...he has a good heart and can relate to the working man.

    Back to the poll...

    Changing VPs at this late date would be unwise. The Republicans would have a field day with it. Just as the Dems would if Romney pulled Ryan for some reason now. It would draw attention away from messaging and be a diaster.
     
  25. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #25
    The right wing salivates at the idea of Hillary. They believe they have all the ammo they need to shred her, kind of like the way Palin was shredded last time around. They think she is shrill, abrasive and vulnerable, and they are sad that they were not given a chance at her in '08. In addition, as Secretary of State, she has far more power than she would as VP, might as well keep her in place and keep the right fuming.

    As has been noted, the next Dem president would have much more cachet having earned their way to the top rather than getting a leg up, FWIW. And how can one ignore what Webster said when offered VP, "I do not propose to be buried until I am really dead and in my coffin."
     

Share This Page