?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Barnstorming on an Invisible Segway [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Marissa Lingen

[ website | My Website ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

2012 election question I haven't seen discussed much [Dec. 17th, 2011|12:49 pm]
Marissa Lingen
[Tags|, ]

I have seen the Republican candidates discussed from hell to breakfast. What I haven't seen is this:

If you were the Democrats, would you keep Joe Biden for VP nominee in 2012? If not, who would you nominate instead?

Note that you do not actually have to be a Democrat in this question. Just answer as though your aims were what you think their aims are. (If you think their aims are the spread of international Communism, I reserve the right to mock, though.)
LinkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: dd_b
2011-12-17 07:10 pm (UTC)
I've seen discussion of whether they're planning to slip Hillary Clinton in as VP to position her to run in 2016. Biden has been moderately quiet and I haven't noticed him creating a scandal, so there's no strong reason to drop him. But I don't think of him as a good ticket-leader.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: houseboatonstyx
2011-12-18 12:59 am (UTC)
Last polls I've heard about, Hillary is the most admired person in the Democratic party (or maybe in the whole country), so she's pretty well set up already. I wish Dean or someone would primary Obama so he could withdraw like LBJ did, and Hillary be drafted for the Presidential nomination in 2012. Obama could try for his second term in 2020.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: adb_jaeger
2011-12-18 01:54 am (UTC)
I honestly don't think Hillary has any desire to run in 2016.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: houseboatonstyx
2011-12-18 03:43 am (UTC)
Or any other time, probably. But she's got a sense of duty, and if drafted to save the party from chaos and the country from another GOP administration, I expect she'd agree.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: jamiam
2011-12-18 03:15 pm (UTC)
Really? She's deeply ambitious, and idealistic. I think she wanted to be the first woman president. Or president, period. She had a pretty good idea what she wanted to do with the job. I think deep-down she still wants to try it.

But then again, if she really wants it, Secretary of State keeps her in the news at least as much VP would. I guess VP gives more of the kneejerk sexists time to get over it.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: adb_jaeger
2011-12-18 03:23 pm (UTC)
I'm basing my thoughts on one basic premise. I freely admit it's somewhat sexist, but I still think it's telling:

Check out photos of her from any time up to and including the speech where she withdrew. Comparing with photos now.

Clearly, she just doesn't care that she now looks like she's 64. Personally, I don't think she should have to care. I think she's done a spectacular job as SoS. I think she would have done a much better job as President than Obama. I'd vote for her in 2016 if she ran. But to me, the fact that she now doesn't seem to care tells me she's not interested in running in 2016.

Because while appearance shouldn't be important, it is.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: jamiam
2011-12-18 09:47 pm (UTC)
Well, from the sexism and appearances point of view: it's quite possible people will be happier electing a non-threatening grandmother figure rather than a sexually-attractive younger woman.

Attractiveness is a sword that cuts both ways for women. In younger women some people still insist on reading it as: bimbo, secretary, arm-candy. In older women some people insist on reading it as: threatening, man-killer, nutcracker, cougar.

And some of those "some people" include my in-laws, who have been slowly warming to Hillary over the last decade.

Edited at 2011-12-18 09:48 pm (UTC)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: houseboatonstyx
2011-12-19 08:06 pm (UTC)
What is your in-laws' background?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: jamiam
2011-12-23 05:53 pm (UTC)
They are kneejerk Republicans of the old fiscal conservative not-very-Christian style, with lots and lots of guns. Father-in-law has a lifetime NRA membership, regularly goes hunting in the Rockies. They are in their late 60s.

Also: upper middle class. FiL was a manager at an old-timey corporate insurance company that only recently discovered business casual. MiL mostly stayed at home. Very white collar and straight-laced, could be the protestant parents holding the bundt in My Big Fat Greek Wedding. But they are originally from northern New Jersey of very ethnic Catholic European extraction, and they still talk like they walked straight out of the Sopranos cast.

Edited at 2011-12-23 05:57 pm (UTC)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: mamculuna
2011-12-17 07:14 pm (UTC)
It depends on whether Obama still needs Biden to bring in Pennsylvania, or even whether he can.

In 2008, Biden also provided evidence of some Washington experience since Obama was so new at it, but maybe that's not so crucial now.

I'd like to see someone who really knows how to get stuff done come onto Obama's team, but not sure Biden is that guy. Nor am I sure who is. Resurrect LBJ?
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: mastadge
2011-12-17 11:22 pm (UTC)
If he drops Biden he might lose DE!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: brooksmoses
2011-12-17 07:44 pm (UTC)
Weird -- somehow I had the idea that it was pretty common for a president up for re-election to run with a different vice president, but the last time that happened was Gerald Ford, before that was F. D. Roosevelt on his third and fourth terms, and before that was Grant -- all other presidents up for re-election have kept their vice-presidents as running mates.

So, statistically speaking, I'd keep Biden.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: davidgoldfarb
2011-12-18 09:39 am (UTC)
Nixon kept the same running mate in 1972 as in 1968: Ford replaced Agnew in 1973, when Agnew resigned.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: brooksmoses
2011-12-18 06:28 pm (UTC)
Right, but the Ford's vice-president was Nelson Rockefeller, and he switched to Bob Dole when he ran for presidential re-election.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: davidgoldfarb
2011-12-18 08:37 pm (UTC)
Okay, I misread you. That wasn't a case of someone having one running mate in an election he won and then another in the next, though.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: reveritas
2011-12-18 01:31 am (UTC)

If I were the Democrats

I would keep Biden.

If I had the possibility of influencing the Democrats, I would nominate Hillary.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: biguglymandoll
2011-12-18 03:47 am (UTC)
I mis-read this the first time, and thought you were asking about 2016. I think part of the reason we're seeing a *very* lackluster group of Republicans is that no one in the Republican party wants to run their "A" game against Obama in 2012 - the world seems to think he's a shoe-in for re-election.

Now, with or without Biden? I think dropping Joe Biden from the ticket would cause too much of a stir, with wonders of "why why why," and "If Biden was a mistake, what other mistakes has Obama made," and "so who's this new person, and what qualifies them now that they didn't have to bring on the ticket in 2008?"

Mind you - and I'll predict this on my blog for new year's predictions, if I remember to - neither Joe Biden nor Hillary Clinton will ever be President, barring someone dying in office, and I think they probably both know that.

What I wonder about, since the Republicans will bring their "A" game in 2016 (which they're not bringing now), is who the Democrats will run in 2016? Who's the next Obama?

(I also have to agree with kore_on_LJ that Obama does seem to be actively governing to lose. I think he'll win, and I think he'll be a better 2nd term Pres than he's been, but it's still very frustrating.)
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: timprov
2011-12-18 02:13 pm (UTC)
What does the Republican A game look like?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: biguglymandoll
2011-12-20 02:20 am (UTC)
Well, yeah. Right now, I think it looks like someone being very quiet. ;-)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: between4walls
2011-12-21 08:08 pm (UTC)
Cuomo seems to be trying to set himself up for 2016. O'Malley, the governor of Maryland, has also been mentioned. But it's still too early to tell.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: biguglymandoll
2011-12-22 12:08 pm (UTC)
Cuomo, do you think? I dunno; the mainstream tends to look askance at Italian NYers, somewhere between the Godfather and the Sopranos. I could be wrong. And good point about O'Malley - he's being pretty quiet about it if he's thinking it. Guess we'll see!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: between4walls
2011-12-23 01:23 am (UTC)
I'm indifferent on Cuomo but being an Italian my own self I hope you're wrong about the perception.
O'Malley might raise his profile nationally if he passes gay marriage like he's been trying to.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: minnehaha
2011-12-18 04:38 am (UTC)
I would keep him, because changing requires an explanation -- and explanations are distracting.

B
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: hypatia_j
2011-12-18 04:39 am (UTC)
Since Joe Biden may be the only senator I never shouted at while watching senate committee hearings on C-SPAN, I would like him to stick around in spite of his nearly Prince Philip-like ability to put his foot in his mouth at inopportune moments.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: between4walls
2011-12-21 07:58 pm (UTC)
I would keep Biden; he was good on the campaign trail in 2008 and he's a nice antidote to Obama's tendency to take himself too seriously. Also, he's not too divisive, which would make a nice contrast if the Republicans nominate one of their further out candidates. Though I expect they've learned their lesson from Palin and will go with Romney.
(Reply) (Thread)