Posted on 05/18/2012 10:27:56 AM PDT by shove_it
Nothing is easier to mock in politics right now than the apparent reluctance of leading Republicans to sign on as Mitt Romney’s second banana. A few weeks ago, Jon Stewart summarized the way that Rob Portman was plugging his Senate colleague Marco Rubio, who in turn was passing the baton to Jeb Bush, with the line, “Doesn’t anyone want the rock in crunch time?”
Since naked ambition is the only bipartisan trait left in politics, however, no one takes these sorts of demurrals seriously. When someone like former primary candidate Tim Pawlenty says “Take my name off the list” for the umpteenth time, everyone assumes that he is merely trying to protect himself from the embarrassment of a high-profile rejection. (In his case, the Iowa Straw Poll was bad enough.)
But what if all these Romney refusniks are actually telling the truth? What if they made a rational calculation and concluded that the upside--sharing the history books with Spiro Agnew, seats at the best international funerals--is not worth the cost if Romney loses in the fall? We could hardly blame them. The modern history of what happens to losing vice presidential nominees is enough to make any politician recoil in horror.
[...]
What a rogue’s gallery of veep creeps. Portman, Rubio or anyone else on the supposed Romney short list might consider losing their cell phones and abandoning their BlackBerries. To be extra safe, they may want to embark on lengthy fact-finding tours of Outer Mongolia that take them off the grid through September. Judging from history, the prudent course clearly is to go missing from Mitt.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
“VP spot on a ticket, any ticket, is a dead end job. If you lose your career is mostly over, if you win you’re career WILL BE over once your president is out. Only time a VP can generally expect any success is if his ticket wins and his president dies in the first term. Any politician that’s not looking at hanging it up soon should say no, that’s been true for ages.”
Post WWII Truman, Nixon, Johnson, GHW Bush were elected to the Presidency after serving as VP. Only Ford and Mondale failed to be elected.
GW Bush probably did the GOP no favor by keeping Cheney, since Cheney wasn’t a good prospect to run for Potus due to health concerns.
So the modern evidence is that VP IS a good springboard for Potus.
But that list misses certain facts. Nixon and Johnson had ascended to the Presidency before being elected it. Nixon LOST his run for pres as a sitting VP had to do 8 years in exile to get the presidency, and if Bobby Kennedy doesn’t get shot he loses in ‘68 also. GH Bush was the first sitting VP in over 150 years to win the presidency, and much like Van Buren only managed one term. Oh and you forgot Gore.
GW’s VP was never going to win the P, he was too unpopular. That’s why sitting VPs don’t win the presidency. No the modern data evidence says that VP is just as bad a spring board as ever. Once since 1841 and he only got one term.
H was the first to win the P since 1837 when Van Buren won, and both of them only made 1 term. Gore has done the right thing after losing, same thing Palin did, turn into a speaker. There’s always room on the lecture circuit for somebody that has name recognition, even if it was only as a second banana.
FDR was never a VP, and Nixon lost the first time around.
A lamer, sillier piece of political analysis would be hard to imagine.
A lamer, sillier piece of political analysis would be hard to imagine.
...........H was the first to win the P since 1837 when Van Buren won, and both of them only made 1 term.................
Thanks for the info - I never knew that!
See, this 71 year old bourbon addled brain can still learn something! Thanks.
Only 4 sitting VPs in history won the P, the 2 before Van Buren were from the pre-ticket days when the VP was the guy who finished second. The ticket era turned VP into a dead end job. It makes sense when you think about it, after 8 years we’re usually pretty sick of even good presidents, and his VP has nothing to run on, they can’t run as disagreeing with their P, then everybody wants to know why they didn’t speak up when it mattered. All they’ve got is “4 more years” which works if they got lucky enough to sit next to a popular guy, but then we don’t actually get 4 more years and bye bye it is. Just a little tidbit that all the “new blood” guys (and their supporters) that think they have a shot at being president someday should keep in mind.
How Mitt Romney Will Choose His Running Mate. [1st phase,secret investigation.]
H wouldn’t have won either, except people thought they were getting a Reagan third term.
</sarcasm>
Did you forget, Truman ran as in incumbent?
>> H wouldn’t have won either, except people thought they were getting a Reagan third term. <<
That’s part of the story, to be sure. But only a part.
I think the other critical factor — and maybe more important — was that Dukakis turned out to be such a lousy candidate:
After the tank ride, the Willie Horton ad, and the debate answer about Kitty’s being raped, I’ve gotta think that ANY credible GOP candidate could have won.
(And don’t forget that early in the summer of 1988, Dukakis was ahead in the polls. It looked like maybe the country was ready to repudiate the party of Reagan. The Duke’s collapse came later, after the USA really got to know him.)
“Did you forget, Truman ran as in incumbent? “
Shore I did, just like Johnson (64) did, Ford (76) did.
It’s lose, not loose. Sorry, but that’s about the fifth time today I’ve read that.
I was not entirely incorrect; 18; to become liberal, broad, generous.
Keep an eye on me I have trouble with to and too also. LOL
Haha...will do. :)
Ford was a special case having been elected to neither position.
FDR ran for v.p. in 1920 though but lost to Coolidge.
Naw. Romney's going to pick Hillery. Just kidding...kinda.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.