Dan pfeiffer was pointing out it's only the dems who tend to focus on picking senators GOP casts a wider net
The classic play is for a governor to pick a senator and vice versa. Obama picking Biden was a big of an outlier, and a bit of proof of concept; Obama had 4 years in Washington and needed a Washington veteran. It just so happens that the supply of female Democratic governors is limited and outside of Whitmer are just not really good candidates. If Stacey Abrams had been allowed to beat Kemp, her resume would be hard to top.
Two was not as good. I am not sure why Alyssa M. invited Rebecca Traister as a guest to comment on Biden. Her smugness and complete negativity was such a turn off. This woman bought the crazy Tara Reade story and was pushing this crap for a while....ffs.
I don't know what they were trying to build with that or why they even ran it. That didn't fit a three-part series and was just ignorant of reality.
I thought episode 1 was so great because it really got into the cloak and dagger stuff from previous campaigns Episode 2 lacked any clear concept IMO - maybe they just misfired on it
Democratic tickets over the last 60 years have been: 2016: Senator - Senator 08-12: Senator - Senator 2004: Senator - Senator 2000: Senator/VP - Senator 92-96: Governor - Senator 1988: Governor - Senator 1984: Senator/VP - Representative 76-80: Governor - Senator 1972: Senator - Ambassador 1968: Senator/VP - Senator 1964: Senator/VP/President - Senator 1960: Senator - Senator So the classic play for Democrats is to pick a senator. The only exceptions dating back to Kennedy are Ferraro and Shriver, and the original choice in '72 was also a senator. Also, senator is one of those words that starts to look really misspelled when you see it that many times in a row.
2 points. First, you only looked at the Dems. The GOPs follow this more. Second, all those VPs I consider executives, which kind of was my point: usually you balance an executive with a legislator, or in the case of Trump, a non-Washingtonian with a creature of Washington. (That's kinda sorta Obama-Biden.) Also, the pattern is stronger in the primary (1972 and later) era. One other point...3 VPs, 3 losses. If you believe in trends, that's scary.
Right. You responded to a post pointing out that Democrats tend to pick senators by saying that the "classic play" is to pair a governor with a senator, which isn't borne out on the Democratic side. That was all I was calling attention to. Though I'll add that the Democratic track record should throw a lot of cold water on the theory of Rice, Bottoms, etc.
Instead of the "2 points," just go for the field goal, since you moved the goal posts so far. Republicans: 1960: VP(former Senator)/Senator 1964: Senator/Rep 1968-72: Former VP/Governor 1976: President/Senator 1980-84: Former Governor/Former Rep (former CIA) 1988: VP/Senator 1992: President/VP 1996: Senator/Rep 2000-04: Governor/former Rep (out of politics for several years) 2008: Senator/Governor 2012: Governor/Rep 2016: Asshole/Governor So, basically, your Senator/Governor dichotomy almost never happens. Other than that, carry on, sir.
The presidential candidate in these elections was the same. Somehow his credentials changed. 1992 is silly because they were incumbents. Pence was also in the House. Win, me.
Nixon: of course his "credentials" changed. In 1960 he was a sitting VP (and 1/2 term Senator immediately prior). In 1968, he had been out of government for 8 years. So "former" VP was appropriate. Pence being in the house has nothing to do with your "Governor/Senator" theory, unless you are saying Pence is "both" parts of your revised executive and legislative theory, which also does not comport with your theory. There was no match up at all, since Trump was not in Government at all. 1992 - I listed it separately since they lost. By the way, I thought the standard was Governor/Senator (or vice versa) until I saw the other post and looked up the Republicans and realized it is not usually the case. What I think is interesting is how Republicans who ran were not in another office when they ran. Nixon (1968 edition) Reagan and Bush Sr Cheney Trump I am not sure if that is a good or bad thing (although looking at that list...)
So, in other words, we're still at: No to Warren or Whitmer. [Too white] No to Bottoms or Abrams. [Haven't made it to the Federal level of government] IOW, we're still with Harris or Duckworth as the two better choices. If you squint, you can maybe see Demings or Grisham as options; if you squint, AND want someone's first political campaign to be as VP to the oldest major party nom in history, you can maybe see Rice as an option. Did I miss anyone?
Not a politician. As she expressed an interest? I saw an interview with her last week and she avoided the question more than Sen. Duckworth, Warren or Harris did. I think she would be fine, but do we want her as President? This is the key question at the moment.
I know and, again, Susan Rice is terrific. My questions were whether she wants to be VP and whether she would be up for the challenge of being President. I suspect the answer is yes (of course) to the second question, not sure about the first.
If she didn't want to be VP she wouldn't be making the talk show rounds. They all obviously want the job.
It's like "running" for your party's Presidential nomination in the 19th century. You couldn't say that you wanted to be nominated.