AHC: VP not a Stepping Stone

The US came to think of the incumbent Vice-President as the frontrunner for the incumbent party's choice of successor in the latter 20th Century, when from 1952 to 2008*, if an incumbent President wasn't running, the VP was. Five elections illustrate the latter point -- 1960 (VP Nixon), 1968 (VP Humphrey, and Nixon returns), 1984 (former VP Mondale), 1988 (VP Bush), and 2000 (VP Gore).

For this thread -- what are some ways this period of America politics be shortened, lengthened, or averted all together? My 2 cents -- if RFK had lived and gone on to win, the pattern may not have ever continued past 1960 (making Nixon's first nomination a matter of trivia, along with 1836 and 1860).

*Incidentally, it appears this pattern will not be returning in 2016 if Obama wins re-election, as Biden will be probably be to old to assume the nomination
 
Hasn’t there been gossip about Biden and Clinton swapping jobs?

Well it's off topic, but -- that talk is bunk. Hillary has stated numerous times now that she doesn't want to be Vice-President, and Biden has declared his intention to remain on the ballot in 2012. Plus, consensus seems to be that Joe's doing a fine job so far...
 
Easy. Get rid of Nixon (messed-up Checkers speech, Eisenhower doesn't like him, whatever). The next choices for Eisenhower's running mates was either Taft, Driscoll, or Dirksen. Taft died in 1953, so he's not running again. I don't think he'd take the job either.

Dirksen might accept it, but it's hard to imagine him not running in 1960. He conceivably could run for Illinois Senate (Douglas' seat) again that year, though.

Driscoll, judging from his bio, seems most likely to just retire from politics after his Vice Presidency (he did so in 1954 OTL from the New Jersey Governorship).

So:
1952: Communications problems force Nixon not to broadcast his Checkers speech. Eisenhower has him removed from the ticket, replaced with second-choice Alfred E. Driscoll of New Jersey. Eisenhower/Driscoll beat Stevenson/Sparkman.

1956: Eisenhower/Driscoll easily beat Stevenson/Kefauver.

1960: Rockefeller/Bricker defeat Symington/Morse (basically a non-Kennedy. Kennedy loses more or is not seen as a winnable candidate by the party bosses due to the butterflies from the lack of Nixon).

1964: Kennedy/Douglas defeat Rockefeller/Bricker.

1968 and Beyond: Everything's so different it's hard to predict. Basically, Kennedy's assassination is gone, so the appointment of Humphrey is out. Since Nixon (...likely) doesn't become President in 1969, the events of his resignation which led to Carter which led to Mondale are out. No Ford means if Reagan is still politically active (probably), it might not take him until 1980 to get elected. Bush wouldn't be appointed CIA Director under Ford and, although he might have some position within the Republican elite, I doubt he'd make it as Reagan's VP in usual circumstances. Thus, he's out. Gore probably follows his father into politics still. Whether he ever becomes Vice President and uses that near-successfully to become President, we'll never know. Good a chance as anyone else, I guess.
 

Cook

Banned
Eisenhower doesn't like him...
Eisenhower didn’t like him.

Regarding the concept of the VP being the anointed son: Nixon lost, Humphrey lost, Mondale lost, Bush Sr. won, and Gore lost; one win out of five. Would it be fair to say that this is a case of people’s perceptions of success not being matched by the reality?
 
Regarding the concept of the VP being the anointed son: Nixon lost, Humphrey lost, Mondale lost, Bush Sr. won, and Gore lost; one win out of five. Would it be fair to say that this is a case of people’s perceptions of success not being matched by the reality?

This raises a related question -- What if a Democrat beats Bush in 1988? If he manages re-election in 92, the Dems might try something different come 96...
 
Eisenhower didn’t like him.

Regarding the concept of the VP being the anointed son: Nixon lost, Humphrey lost, Mondale lost, Bush Sr. won, and Gore lost; one win out of five. Would it be fair to say that this is a case of people’s perceptions of success not being matched by the reality?

The longer a party holds the presidency the more difficult it becomes to hold it.

Also it´s always difficult (nearly always) to defeat a sitting president. Look at it like this:

Nixon got the nomination, Humphrey got the nomination, Mondale got the nomination, Bush Sr got the nomination, Gore got the nomination and Cheney is unelectable. After two terms of holding the presidency, odds are you lose it, after three terms the loss becomes more likely, four terms nearly certain.

There are exceptions in the past, FDR, gilded age, and of course the era of democratic republicans (Monroe running unopposed), but since WW2 this has been so.
 
I don´t buy into Clinton becoming VP, but now is the perfect time for Obama to anoint his successor I guess. Why would he want his successor to be Clinton though.

Apart from the fact that they are both centrists. (Rightwing centrists;))
 
Top