Ability to run for President in 2012 is a key requirement for VP

[mouse7]

The VP choice has to be someone who is young enough to run for President in 2012 for 2 terms. That means they can't be much older than 51 or 52.

We have to have another strong candidate to run after a two term Democratic President.

[Qutzupalotl]

1. Another important requirement is

being able to step in and be the president when needed.

[boxster]

2. 51 or 52?

Since when did a requirement for President be that he/she be under 60 years of age?

[daveskilt]

7. since bob dole got crucified for looking old

no one wanted another regean - not even the far right republicans who loved him - they didnt want another alzheimers president as an international joke.

[Tim_in_HK]

62. I would say that

Dole's age was probably reason #259 that he wasn't elected . . . far below the more obvious.

[daveskilt]

68. his bumbling old guy personna added to the 257 other reasons

he was seen as an old fool. people were quite happy to vote for a young fool in 2000. damn i hate that frat boy

[boxster]

69. Bob Dole wasn't 60, either.

[Wickerman]

8. Yeah, look at Reagan, he was viable until

oops, nevermind.

No intention to pick on any candidate, just a shameless cheapshot on Uncle Ronnie.

[mouse7]

16. Technically it isn't. Pragmatically, it is.

The age of a Presidential Candidate would be a serious issue if they would be to start a term after retirement age.

[boxster]

39. 60 isn't retirement age.

Kerry is already 60. Clark is 59. If the arbitrary cutoff is 60, does that mean neither of them should run in 2008 if, God forbid, we lose in 2004?

[sadiesworld]

3. Clark appears quite healthy.

[On the Road]

4. Actually, I Think You Could Argue for the Reverse

The VP in a second-term administration is usually the prohibitve favorite for the nomination. Yet winning the election as a sitting VP is very difficult -- historically, the odds are not very good.

The party might be better off with the VP not running and opening up the nomination to the best candidate at the time.

[mouse7]

20. That's because often VPs have not been strong candidates

Many presidents pick VPs that that are no political threat to them. They are threatened by another strong personality in their inner circle and run from it. Dan Quayle was the perfect example of this.

VPs that are strong leaders in their own right do very well when they run for President.

[JasonBerry]

26. ??

Humphrey wasn't "strong"?? Muskie wasn't "strong"?? Mondale wasn't "strong"? Gore wasn't "strong"?? 2012 should be the furthest thing from minds today in selecting a veep.

[Freddie Stubbs]

5. Very few VP's have been elected President

Especailly right after two terms as VP.

[adamrsilva]

6. Yes, Clark would be too old.

Edwards on the other hand would be just right, and would be the clear Democratic nominee for 2012. This is why Bill wants Clark as Kerry's VP. Clark is not a threat to Hillary later on, but Edwards is.

[daveskilt]

10. Hillary in 2012!!!!!

after completing another NY senate term. perfect timing - but she needs the dem to win this time. hell we ALL need the dem to win this time around

[lancdem]

11. Please

Not another Clinton conspiracy theory. BTW, that article claiming Bill wants Clark as VP was in the N.Y. Post, so take it with a grain of salt. Besides, if there's a two-term Dem, Hillary might be too old herself (65) to run in 2012.

[damnyankee2601]

14. Whay do you think Bill even cares?

It doesn't seem like Bill and Hillary are particularly close, what with separate houses and all. Here's a radical idea for you:

Bill Clinton wants Clark because he is a real threat to Bush. Isn't that what we all want?

[mikehiggins]

15. Let's just concentrate on this election, shall we?

<<Deleted by writer to post as seperate thread>>

[mouse7]

17. That's way too short-sighted.

There's a real problem with American thinking regarding looking in the long term. Americans are way too short-sighted. They want everything now, and they don't give a second thought to tomorrow.

Democrats have to cement every advantage we can THIS election thinking for the long term health of the party. One of the ways to do that is to ensure the VP is young enough to be the next party leader.

[krkaufman]

40. I'd rather pick a strong VP candidate who has Prez credentials NOW

We need to focus on the near-term and make sure we're putting up a ticket that gives people confidence that EITHER man could step up to the job of President NOW! The American people will be pissing themselves by the time Rove is finished with them in November, and we'll need a strong ticket where both candidates have a strong resume.

And with the way the Republicans have totally screwed-up the country's finances, failed to finish the war in Afghanistan, failed to go after Al Qaeda, and created a new culture dish in Iraq for the virus that is terrorism, we'll be lucky to get re-elected in 2008 -- *IF* we win this Fall.

Gray Davis was blamed for California's woes; you think a Dem President won't suffer the same fate when the economy collapses?

[Leilani]

41. What a Concept

Imagine choosing a team of 2 qualified people, each ready to assume their duties, regardless of whatever situation or crisis we find ourselves in.


But, but, but, what about cute?

[krkaufman]

52. Thanks, needed that. n/t

[Exgeneral]

43. THANK YOU

remember the script reads: Kerry defeated narrowly by Bush"

[onehandle]

19. Bull.

Clark is in better shape than any of us. He'll be fine in 2012.

[hlthe2b]

21. Am I correct that he'd be 68 in 2012? that doesn't strike me as too old?

for someone as active and mentally fit as Clark...

[mouse7]

22. Well... let's find out. Can someone start a poll?

Ask "Is 68 too old to run for a 2nd term as President?"

Maybe people aren't a sensitive to this as I am.

[Tweed]

60. LOL, or maybe it is because Edwards is too inexperienced

and would lose votes for the party?

[chiburb]

9. Then we better draft Hillary for VP now....

Because 2012 is HER year, after the next President serves his two terms.

[damnyankee2601]

12. Dream on.

Merka ain't ready for another Clinton.

[onehandle]

18. Read my sig...

[sadiesworld]

13. that Hillary. So busy, so oblique.

[andym]

23. Presidents Humphrey, Mondale and Gore would agree

To be fair, only Gore served with a two-term President, and he actually won (well kind of, except that * sits in the WH).

[mouse7]

25. Humphrey would have won but for Nixon October Surprise

Historians have proven that Nixon sabotages the Johnson Peace Talks with North Vietnam with a woman named Chennault as the intermediary. Humphrey was leading going into the final days, but the Peace Talks collapse Nixon arranged cut out Humphrey's legs from beneath him.

Gore won.

Mondale just wasn't a terribly charismatic individual.

Truman won. Poppy Bush won. Nixon did what Nixon did, whatever you want to call it. Johnson won.

[JasonBerry]

27. On the other hand

There are those who believe that the Johnson move - at that time - looked terribly contrived and it all would have backfired anyway. In 1968 the issue was "Law & Order" remember? The war, as important as it was, was not the number one issue. After Bobby, MLK, Democratic convention, rioting in the cities, America went socially conservative and picked the "Law & Order" candidate. Nixon was very successful at hanging Hump with the soft on crime crap - he would restore Law & Order in America! Only to become an outlaw himself.

[mouse7]

30. Nope.

Humphrey was leading in the polls in the final days with solid margins until the week before the election, the North Vietnamese walked out of the peace talks because of Nixon's manipulations. Humphrey's talked in the polls becasue of that final week walkout.

[andym]

28. Truman and Johnson were already sitting Presidents

Truman and Johnson were already sitting Presidents.
Most vice presidents who won were already sitting presidents.

Nixon was out of office for 8 years, but was a former vice President.

Only Poppy Bush won-- he made history. I believe it was the first time a sitting vice president had won since the 19th century. Martin Van Buren I think was the last one before Poppy.

[mouse7]

32. You cannot deny what VPs have accomplished in last 70 years.

A VP in a Presidential race is undeniably the biggest factor in Presidential elections now.

[andym]

34. NO, a VP in the Presidential race is not the biggest factor

Having a sitting President in the Presidential race is the biggest factor! The power of the incumbency is well known. That is why Bush has an advantage even this year. And that's why the VP's who became President before their own Presidential election won.

The record for VPs who were not sitting presidents is in the 20th century:

Losers:
Gore(2000)
Mondale (1980)
Humphrey (1968)
Nixon (1960)


Winners
Poppy (1988)
Nixon* (1968), not sitting, but I'll give it you.

4 to 2 against!


Conclusion: We don't want a sitting VP to run. And it even makes sense, the VP is usually chosen for electability balance, not for who would make the best President or for overall electability.

[mouse7]

35. Gore did not lose.

That means 50%. That is by far the greatest factor in determining the next President.

If you want to base your whole argument on a "legitimate" defeat of Gore by Dumbya, to quote a current popular saying, "Bring it on."

[andym]

36. 50% means it has no influence!

Even giving you Gore,
50% is what you would expect by random chance, like flipping a coin.
Therefore being a sitting VP has no influence.

[mouse7]

37. No... that means it has far more influence than any other factor

If one factor has 50% influence, and all the other factors in the election combined have a 50% influence, then you make sure the Democratic Party has someone in 2012 that has that factor on their side in the 2012 elections.

[andym]

38. No, it's simple math

You want factors that push the statistics in your favor.
That is you want factors that favor you such that the average chance for your candidate exceeds 50%.

Therefore, you want to maximize factors that are greater than 50%, minimize factors that are less than 50%.

The average chance (assuming all factors being equal which they are not) would be the average of the critical factors.

A 50% factor will only help your average approach 50%, that is when chance favors that you will lose. But it will hurt you when your average exceeds 50%, that is when chance favors that you will win.


Here are 2 scenatios (weighting factors equally for point of discussion)
1) Factor A= 30%, Factor B= 50%, Factor C= 60%, Average = (15 + 50 +55)/3= 40%. Without this 50% factor you would have (15 + 55)/2= 35%. So the 50% factor helps you when your average chance is below 50% (that is when chance favors you will lose), but that is not a scenario you want.

2) Factor A= 30% Factor B= 50%, Factor C= 85%, Average = (30 + 50 + 85)= 55%, If you eliminiate the 50% factor here then the average is (30 + 85)/2 = 57.5% which is higher. So the "neutral" factor B actually hurts when you want the odds to be in your favor.

Point is that you want to accumulate factors that are more than 50% in your favor, not neutral factors. Therefore, you do not want your candidate to be a sitting VP ( or at best it's a wash factor)

[mouse7]

47. VP is best bio item to become President... by far.

Recent VPs that have become President - 3 out of 6

Name any other position or resume piece that has a .500 batting average for making a man President? Senator? Not hardly how many Senators have there been in the last 50 years? Governors? Nope. Supreme Ct. Justices? Nope. Any Cabinet sec'y position? Nope. Corporate CEO? Not hardly.

Any time the Democratic Party has the opportunity to create for itself a candidate for the Presidency that has a 50% chance of winning the office for the Party, it absolutely must do it. No other bio item for the Presidency stands remotely close.

[andym]

59. If you're talking about the last 50 years, then again I must disagree

If you're talking about the last 50 years, Governor is an equally good predictor as VP even if we put Bush down as a loser.


Winning:
Clinton
Reagan
Carter

Losing
GW Bush (but is the Pres.)*
Dukakis
Stevenson

3:3
or 4:2 to winning if you count Bush as a winner

Btw, before this FDR, Coolidge, Wilson, and T Roosevelt were also govs or former govs, but in some elections they beat govs, so the numbers are either above or below 50% over 102 years depending where you place Bush.

As for terms: govs or ex govs held the presidency 20 out of the last
50 years, and 56 out of the 102 not counting Bush.

But my interpretation of the data is that becuase no professsion breaks 50%, profession does not count as a critical factor, except that some professions are never represented and that few Senators and congressman have been elected President. OTOH, there is one positive indicator: "University President": Eisenhower and Wilson both succeeded.

[mouse7]

65. Wrong. There have been hundreds of governors since WW2

I don't have the exact figures. But of those hundreds, 3 have become President.

There have been thousands of University Presidents since WW2 started. One became President.

To be accurate, you have to include THE TOTAL POPULATION you are speaking of, in this case, all the State Governors since WW2.

[roguevalley]

64. As America ages, so does the voting electorate. Age won't matter in

2012. Ideas and experience will. By then, where I live
will be under water because of us neglecting global
warming. All I care about by then is electing a candidate
who can swim.

[JasonBerry]

24. Why??

The running mate for 2004 is not a shoe-in for 2012. In fact, history would say otherwise. Being on the ticket may help - but it also may hurt. Nobody can predict the future under a Kerry win or a Kerry loss. Did it help Humphrey? Muskie? Mondale? Dole? Quayle? Gore? 2012 is eons into the future and plays no role - at all - in the selection of a vice presidential candidate.

[mouse7]

29. Incumbent VP has the greatest role on picking next President

If you deny the role that being the incumbent VP has in choosing the next President, facts do not support your position. Gore won. Humphrey would have won if not for the October Surprise pulled by Nixon mentioned in post #25. Muskie was not an incumbant VP. Mondale was historically uncharasmatic for someone reaching that high an office. Quayle was a historically stupid nobody that Poppy Bush picked to not be threatening in his inner circle. Dole was not an incumbant. However, Truman won. Poppy Bush won. Johnson won. Nixon won.

In the last 70 years, only 3 VPs did not go on to win the Presidential election, and Humphrey was proved to have had the 1968 election stolen by treasonous intervention in peace negotiations by Nixon.

People who don't pay attention to the futute get burned in the future.

[Sensitivity]

31. This is over-reaching. We'd better figure how to beat Bush as first thing

[mouse7]

33. No. It's called thinking ahead.

Those who plan for the future do well in the future. Those that don't plan for the future are left with whatever they throw together at the spur of the moment.

[Nederland]

45. Nonsense

If you had to chose between a VP that helped the ticket defeat Bush but was too old to run in 2012, and a VP that was young enough to run in 2012 but didn't help the ticket that much, who would you choose? I'd choose the stronger ticket every time.

[mouse7]

48. I choose both.

We should select someone that both helps the ticket and creates a leading candidate in 2012.

[Leilani]

42. Not being 18 myself anymore

I find the theory of this thread rather silly.

People at 60 are not exactly ready for the boneyard.

68 is the retirement age, & many people are working long past that.

[GRClarkesq]

44. Does Hillary want to wait until 2012?

I thought her timeline was sooner than that. Not raising any conspiracy theories, I just think for her personally 2008 is best.

[mouse7]

50. Is Hillary going to run against Kerry 2nd term?

The only way Hillary stands a chance in 2008 is if Kerry loses. He won't. So now, you're discussing whether Hillary should run against a President Kerry. That's up to her, I suppose.

[DrFunkenstein]

Cheney Is Running In 2012?

As a brain in a jar? Cool!

[MrSlayer]

46. Hey 60 is the new 40, Haven't you heard?

Wes Clark would only be 66 after two terms as VP. Certainly not too old.

[mouse7]

53. Clark is healthier than most.

Clark is on the bubble for me. Age would be a factor for Clark in a second term (in 2016). Running for President at 70 for a 2nd term would be an issue, but he's very healthy right now.

This is sheer speculation next, but... He's also not "built" like a guy who may develop serious health problems later in life. He's pretty slight in build, and doesn't carry a lot of extra weight. He's probably got excellent cardiovascular fitness.

I might be able to give Clark a pass on it, but I would need a lot more info on his health.

[Qutzupalotl]

54. He swims every day.

He's in excellent shape. Lean.

[mouse7]

56. That will do it.

Best exercise there is. Excellent cardio with very low occurance of injuries.

Anyone got a link to other medical details?

[HuskerDem]

58. People with positive additudes live longer

And he's got that in spades as well. As I said in another post, he'll probably surpass the exruciating lifespan of ol Strom Thurmond.

[ButterflyBlood]

49. wrong

don't you know, 2012 is Hillary's year. We definately can't spoil that, we owe it to Hillary. Why even have a primary that year, let's have a coronations instead. </sarcasm>

[GRClarkesq]

51. Kinda like the Repubs owed to Bob Dole

that worked out well for them.

[ButterflyBlood]

55. I just hate the idea that

we HAVE to nominate Hillary at some time. That comes from a Freeper conspiracy theory that she's secretely controlling the whole Democratic party.

[HuskerDem]

57. Clark would be an excellent choice, he'll probably outlive

Strom Thurmond with his healthy lifestyle and positive additude.

[trogdor]

61. Two words: Dan Quayle

Two more words: Richard Cheney

Even two more: Spiro Agnew

FWIW, I do agree with you; I just wanted to pee in your cornflakes. :evilgrin:

[mouse7]

66. Quayle and Agnew both picked not to compete with Pres.

Quayle and Agnew were recognized by historians to have been picked specifically because they were weak in charisma and stature, in order not to take spotlight off the top of the ticket.

When a VP choice is intentionally made because of weakness, not strength, it doesn't disprove that strong VPs make good Presidential Candidates as incumbent VPs.

[incapsulated]

63. I'm a Clark supporter, and I agree

He would be 67 in 2012, and that is pushing it. Voters think of the POTUS as a position for a younger man now, it's a demanding job. But then, I never wanted anything less than the Presidency for Clark.

If he can't be President, he would be using his best abilities as Sec. of State.

[LTR]

67. I don't buy it

Whoever the Dem nominee in 2012 is could be anyone. Popular governor or senator. Or maybe a VP.

If we control the WH for the next eight years, people may be seeking new blood and a fresh face.

And VP isn't always the ticket to the presidency. Look at Joe Lieberman. He was elected VP, but was not successful this time around.

I say give the VP nod to whoever strengthens the ticket most.