"Consider the vice presidency of Mike Pence. His entire job — at least as it seemed from the outside — was to a) praise Donald Trump and b) stand over Trump’s shoulder when the president signed a piece of legislation into law."
Cristo,
Your point is well taken, except that Mannequin Mike is polling at 9%. The Old Testament Christian will need to return to rural Indiana radio to resume his role as a "Decaffeinated Rush Limbaugh" for his senior years with Mother.
"Every sitting or former vice president who has sought the Democratic nomination since 1972 has gotten it. Every. Single. One."
. . . Mondale. Gore. Biden.
I don't think that three is really enough to constitute a strong precedent.
There's another precedent that seems more compelling to me: Of *sitting* vice-presidents from any party who have been nominated to run for president since 1836, the list of successful candidates in the general election includes Martin Van Buren, John Breckenridge, George HW Bush . . . that's it: three. (If you go back to the start, you add Th. Jefferson, but the electoral system was fundamentally different).
That's over the course of 184 years. In just my lifetime, I've seen three sitting vice-presidents *lose* general presidential elections: Nixon, Humphrey, and Gore. All three had the advantage of earlier prominent senatorial careers, and Gore, in particular, was a high-profile and productive vice-president in an era of exceptional economic growth. The great exception, Bush Sr., began his campaign polling woefully behind Michael Dukakis (Dukakis had leads in the range of 10-17 points in the early months), despite the fact that Bush was associated with one of the most popular US presidents. Lee Atwater's invention of the deep-disinformation presidential campaign in 1988 reversed the situation for Bush, but evidence for the weakness of the vice-presidential position in a general election is historically overwhelming.
There are reasons why VP is a poor launching pad. It's not an advantage to have your name ID tied to a more dominant figure, and Harris's case confirms how hard it is to have an independent profile for voters to recognize (even Humphrey and Gore were dogged by this, despite having clear pre-VP political personas--Cheney, a dominant VP, was the only clear exception, although Biden had an very unusual profile too). Harris may well be in good position to get her party's nomination according to precedent, but I think her problem in that regard is that many members of her party understand the history of these candidacies and are very much afraid of inviting a repeat. If Biden really believes she's the right candidate and wants her to succeed if he does not choose to run, I think he's going have to help her craft a clear, visible, and successful independent profile over the next twelve months, not just as a congenial sidekick.
Mr. Cillizza set the time frame (1972-present), Random, not I. You could add Truman to your list too. I don't think he or Johnson, sitting presidents when nominated, have the slightest bearing on Harris's position.
Humphrey does and I mentioned how in my comment, which argued that his more germane precedent for Harris was the non-viability of sitting VPs as presidential candidates in the general election.
As acknowledged when I wrote, "There's *another* precedent that seems more compelling to me . . ."
Random, I'm puzzled by your approach. First you object that I did not go beyond Mr. Cillizza's framework, then you object that I did, when I indicated that's what I intended to do. If you want to defend the salience of Mr. Cillizza's claim about VP status by extending his time frame or show that mine is wrong or not germane, then why not present your argument? But trying to trip me up on side-issues that don't pan out is not a good use of your time or mine.
Well, chris I’m Not positive about Kamala myself but I do know that her and Pete are in different positions; she can’t outshine or upstage the President.
Pete’s nice and all but lacks the gravitas for President. Sorry but he looks like Howdy Doody, the puppet.
The question I have (and I write this as fan of the VP, personally and professionally) is, could she beat former President Trump or Governor DeSantis in an election? I don't know that she could, and given the stakes were the Democrat nominee to lose in 2024, that's quite worrying.
Interesting to read what Kate N says about Kamala Harris’ voice. Her “prosecutor voice” has a lot more strength and power, than her (in my opinion) sweet voice she adopted when she became VP.
I had been a supporter of hers since she was Cali Atty Gen. But since she dropped out of the presidential campaign...she has basically dropped out of politics.
Compare her to Pete Buttigieg...he is fierce in articulating his Departmental duties and is willing to go on FOX-News to kick their asses when they try to trip him up.
I have not seen any indication that Kamala is capable of being President.
I agree. I think if Biden does not run, she becomes the automatic frontrunner and will most likely get the nod. I think she has been an effective VP, whatever that means - she is certainly better than her predecessor, who came off as a wooden soldier. My only gripe is her voice. I know it sounds petty, but I cannot stand to listen to her. I plan to read what she says and skip the audio.
That will only happen if he passes the baton to her. In 1968, Johnson saw the handwriting on the wall...he was dead meat. He did not offer up Hubert Humphrey ( a solid candidate), with the supporters of Gene McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy vocal, he let the chips fall.
Bobby would have been the choice until; his assassination.
How that one bullet changed American History is immeasurable.
One thing about assassination, Mr. Wood: it works.
I think Humphrey would probably have gotten the nomination anyway. I campaigned for McCarthy in several states and discovered from that experience how much control Democratic machines had at the time. They uniformly turned out the vote for Humphrey in low-profile states--nobody was out canvassing for Humphrey there; it was taken care of--and while McCarthy had his big win in Wisconsin and Kennedy in California, I think the combination of machine-run state parties and unpledged delegates at the convention (there were not that many primary states then) would have swung it for Humphrey. (I think he would have been a fine president, but that's not how I felt then.)
Johnson did use his influence on Humphrey's behalf, but given the unpopularity that drove him from office he did not campaign.
"Consider the vice presidency of Mike Pence. His entire job — at least as it seemed from the outside — was to a) praise Donald Trump and b) stand over Trump’s shoulder when the president signed a piece of legislation into law."
Cristo,
Your point is well taken, except that Mannequin Mike is polling at 9%. The Old Testament Christian will need to return to rural Indiana radio to resume his role as a "Decaffeinated Rush Limbaugh" for his senior years with Mother.
"Every sitting or former vice president who has sought the Democratic nomination since 1972 has gotten it. Every. Single. One."
. . . Mondale. Gore. Biden.
I don't think that three is really enough to constitute a strong precedent.
There's another precedent that seems more compelling to me: Of *sitting* vice-presidents from any party who have been nominated to run for president since 1836, the list of successful candidates in the general election includes Martin Van Buren, John Breckenridge, George HW Bush . . . that's it: three. (If you go back to the start, you add Th. Jefferson, but the electoral system was fundamentally different).
That's over the course of 184 years. In just my lifetime, I've seen three sitting vice-presidents *lose* general presidential elections: Nixon, Humphrey, and Gore. All three had the advantage of earlier prominent senatorial careers, and Gore, in particular, was a high-profile and productive vice-president in an era of exceptional economic growth. The great exception, Bush Sr., began his campaign polling woefully behind Michael Dukakis (Dukakis had leads in the range of 10-17 points in the early months), despite the fact that Bush was associated with one of the most popular US presidents. Lee Atwater's invention of the deep-disinformation presidential campaign in 1988 reversed the situation for Bush, but evidence for the weakness of the vice-presidential position in a general election is historically overwhelming.
There are reasons why VP is a poor launching pad. It's not an advantage to have your name ID tied to a more dominant figure, and Harris's case confirms how hard it is to have an independent profile for voters to recognize (even Humphrey and Gore were dogged by this, despite having clear pre-VP political personas--Cheney, a dominant VP, was the only clear exception, although Biden had an very unusual profile too). Harris may well be in good position to get her party's nomination according to precedent, but I think her problem in that regard is that many members of her party understand the history of these candidacies and are very much afraid of inviting a repeat. If Biden really believes she's the right candidate and wants her to succeed if he does not choose to run, I think he's going have to help her craft a clear, visible, and successful independent profile over the next twelve months, not just as a congenial sidekick.
.
". . . Mondale. Gore. Biden.
"I don't think that three is really enough to constitute a strong precedent."
How 'bout four?
LBJ's VP, Hubert Humphrey, received the Dem nomination in 1968
And Johnson in 1964 -- five
.
Mr. Cillizza set the time frame (1972-present), Random, not I. You could add Truman to your list too. I don't think he or Johnson, sitting presidents when nominated, have the slightest bearing on Harris's position.
Humphrey does and I mentioned how in my comment, which argued that his more germane precedent for Harris was the non-viability of sitting VPs as presidential candidates in the general election.
.
". . . the non-viability of sitting VPs as presidential candidates in the general election."
Outside the scope of Mr Cillizza's claim
.
As acknowledged when I wrote, "There's *another* precedent that seems more compelling to me . . ."
Random, I'm puzzled by your approach. First you object that I did not go beyond Mr. Cillizza's framework, then you object that I did, when I indicated that's what I intended to do. If you want to defend the salience of Mr. Cillizza's claim about VP status by extending his time frame or show that mine is wrong or not germane, then why not present your argument? But trying to trip me up on side-issues that don't pan out is not a good use of your time or mine.
Well, chris I’m Not positive about Kamala myself but I do know that her and Pete are in different positions; she can’t outshine or upstage the President.
Pete’s nice and all but lacks the gravitas for President. Sorry but he looks like Howdy Doody, the puppet.
As a woman, I don’t like how she giggles during interviews
The question I have (and I write this as fan of the VP, personally and professionally) is, could she beat former President Trump or Governor DeSantis in an election? I don't know that she could, and given the stakes were the Democrat nominee to lose in 2024, that's quite worrying.
Interesting to read what Kate N says about Kamala Harris’ voice. Her “prosecutor voice” has a lot more strength and power, than her (in my opinion) sweet voice she adopted when she became VP.
VP is a tricky position and I think she’s been great!
M.
I had been a supporter of hers since she was Cali Atty Gen. But since she dropped out of the presidential campaign...she has basically dropped out of politics.
Compare her to Pete Buttigieg...he is fierce in articulating his Departmental duties and is willing to go on FOX-News to kick their asses when they try to trip him up.
I have not seen any indication that Kamala is capable of being President.
I agree. I think if Biden does not run, she becomes the automatic frontrunner and will most likely get the nod. I think she has been an effective VP, whatever that means - she is certainly better than her predecessor, who came off as a wooden soldier. My only gripe is her voice. I know it sounds petty, but I cannot stand to listen to her. I plan to read what she says and skip the audio.
"...and will most likely get the nod."
That will only happen if he passes the baton to her. In 1968, Johnson saw the handwriting on the wall...he was dead meat. He did not offer up Hubert Humphrey ( a solid candidate), with the supporters of Gene McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy vocal, he let the chips fall.
Bobby would have been the choice until; his assassination.
How that one bullet changed American History is immeasurable.
One thing about assassination, Mr. Wood: it works.
I think Humphrey would probably have gotten the nomination anyway. I campaigned for McCarthy in several states and discovered from that experience how much control Democratic machines had at the time. They uniformly turned out the vote for Humphrey in low-profile states--nobody was out canvassing for Humphrey there; it was taken care of--and while McCarthy had his big win in Wisconsin and Kennedy in California, I think the combination of machine-run state parties and unpledged delegates at the convention (there were not that many primary states then) would have swung it for Humphrey. (I think he would have been a fine president, but that's not how I felt then.)
Johnson did use his influence on Humphrey's behalf, but given the unpopularity that drove him from office he did not campaign.