2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumPicking a VP is the 1st decision and IMO the most important, but....
the image makers has gone from teenagers in the garage, or billion dollar IPO moguls from college dorms back to the elders such as the 78yr old pope.
So my question is should the candidate pick a VP in their 50s or go with an elder like themselves.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(116,033 posts)is most capable of doing the job - being president of the Senate, for starters; and being ready to take over if the president is unable to act. Age doesn't matter. McCain didn't use those criteria, instead choosing someone young and attractive (thinking those qualities would attract votes, regardless of the actual incompetence and ignorance of the selectee), and look what happened.
CK_John
(10,005 posts)Yupster
(14,308 posts)Picking Romney as VP wouldn't have gotten him anywhere.
femmocrat
(28,394 posts)Like Obama picked Biden.
One advantage to selecting a younger VP candidate would be that person's chances of winning in 8 years, but few VPs are ever elected president.
Four were directly elected President after serving as Vice President:
John Adams, 1796.
Thomas Jefferson, 1800.
Martin Van Buren, 1836.
George Bush, 1988.
Vice Presidency: Stepping Stone Or MillStone
www.vicepresidents.com/steppingstone.html
Recursion
(56,582 posts)At which point Secretary of State started to be seen as the annointed successor.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)CK_John
(10,005 posts)winning is just BS.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)and are 7 months out from the first primaries and caucuses, 11 months out from the last, and a full year from the nominating convention, the VP question is currently not very pressing. FIRST you nominate someone.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)The VP is the most important decision?
Half the people in this country can't name the current VP forget about past ones.
CK_John
(10,005 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(116,033 posts)Sarah Palin's spectacular incompetence, proving McCain's bad judgment in choosing her, was a possible exception to that rule, although it's likely Obama would have won regardless. Most of the time the chosen running mate is someone the nominee considers to be qualified as a backup (and whom the voters will accept in that role), whose views are consistent with those of the nominee and the party, and who is an effective campaigner. Obama would have won if someone other than Biden had been his running mate, although Biden was an excellent choice. In 2008 Ryan didn't help Romney, but Romney lost that election all by himself. John Edwards was an effective campaigner for Kerry in 2004 (although he eventually turned out to be a moral slagheap as a person), but Kerry lost anyhow for reasons entirely unrelated to Edwards. Bush won in 2000 because the Supreme Court awarded him the election, not because Dick Cheney was his running mate - and Gore lost for the same reason, not because Joe Lieberman was a lousy and boring campaigner. And on and on. A running mate has never won an election for anyone, and even Palin, as terrible a choice as she was, might have been a deciding factor only in a very close election, which it wasn't.
CK_John
(10,005 posts)that does the harm. A good pick shows how a POTUS will govern.
Yupster
(14,308 posts)He wasn't supposed to be the pick. Perot asked him if he could use his name on the ballot applications to meet deadlines. Then Perot was going to attract a well-known politician to be his VP candidate. He wanted Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) and they were talking.
Then Perot withdrew from the race.
Then a few months later he reentered the race and by then the deadlines were passed to change picks and poor Admiral Stockdale was stuck in a spot no one wanted him, including himself.
CK_John
(10,005 posts)person band.