Obama-Biden 2016

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: After 1900' started by 297*, Dec 9, 2015.

  1. 297* Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2014
    This is not a timeline asking he ran for a third term. User HeavyCrown once said on my thread 2000 McCain Presidency and 2005 Invasion of Iran that President Obama was politically inexperienced, and when I Personal Messaged her asking her why, she said it was because Obama only spent three years in the Senate. For this timeline, let's say he doesn't run in 2008 and after Edwards' scandal surfaces, Hillary Clinton easily wins the Democratic Primaries. Because 2008 was a bad time for the GOP, she beats McCain-Palin and Romney-Ryan and another Clinton "cleans up after the second Bush". While she's president, Obama spends more time in the Senate and becomes politically experienced. In 2016, Obama runs for president and wins. How would his presidency be different? He once said that campaigning against Trump would have been fun.
     
  2. dw93 Can't Afford to be a Donor

    Joined:
    May 8, 2015
    Location:
    Illinois
    I think the Democratic primary would be much more open in 2016 TTL as Obama not running in 2008 probably means Hillary has a much easier path to the nomination, Obama won't be seen as "next in line" or inevitable, heck depending on who she picks as VP, Hillary's VP could be seen as the front runner for the Democrats in 2016. However, if Obama did become the 2016 nominee TTL, assuming the GOP is still the circus that it is OTL, Obama wins the 2016 election, unless there's another economic collapse or a major foreign policy screw up.
     
  3. Just a Rube Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2012
    Obama actually has a reasonable shot at being Hillary Clinton's VP ITTL. He was a sufficiently prominent "name" even at the time to attract attention, and was known primarily for being charismatic and a unifier (he first came to national prominence with his 2004 Convention speech, stressing the similarities between "Blue States" and "Red States"). He's also a fresh face, and not associated with her husband's presidency (thus avoiding preemptive discussion of "Clinton Fatigue").

    Biden makes much less sense as a VP for HRC (Biden's selling points were experience and foreign policy experience, both areas where Obama was perceived as being much more vulnerable than Clinton was), and the rest of the Democratic bench wasn't particularly strong (Tim Kaine? Chris "Financial Scandals Right as the Economy Collapses" Dodd?).

    If Obama is VPOTUS for 2008-2016, he obviously is in a good position to run, and probably as dominant as HRC is now. Biden won't be his VP candidate, however; he's dangerously old in 2016, and his strengths don't mesh as well with "8 year VPOTUS" Obama as they did with "1st term Senator Obama."
     
  4. Hammerbolt Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2015
    Location:
    Lusitania
    Is this legal? I'll admit I'm very ignorant of the finer points of these laws, but I though that he would not be able to take office again...
     
  5. Kaiser K Literally Scoop Jackson

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    Imperial Palace, Bradenton, Floridian Reich
    Of course it's legal, if Obama had not become the Presidential nominee in 2008, he could have easily been chosen as VP.
     
  6. Hammerbolt Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2015
    Location:
    Lusitania
    I mean, can he be VP now, after being president twice?
     
  7. Kaiser K Literally Scoop Jackson

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    Imperial Palace, Bradenton, Floridian Reich
    I believe not, as the VP has to be eligible to be President.
     
  8. jpj1421 Hillary 2020 - ChAOs rEiGns

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Location:
    Outside Philly
    Technically the 22nd Amendment states that no person shall be elected President more than twice. So, arguably, being made Vice President and potentially President again through vacancy wouldn't violate that. The intent of the amendment clearly would prevent such a move, but that would be for the Supreme Court to decide if it came up.
     
  9. bphillip54 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2015
    it is legal, the 22nd amendment, which restricts the President to two terms, only applies to the president so Obama as VPOTUS would be allowed to run for POTUS. As an example, George H.W. Bush spent 8 years as President Reagan's VPOTUS and was able to run for President in both the 88 and 92 elections.
     
  10. Derek Jackson Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2004
    Location:
    Uk
    I do not think Biden would be his VP nominee had Obama not been president and if 16 were the first year he got the nomination
     
  11. GeographyDude Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2014
    I like the model of our last two vice-presidents, an older seasoned individual.

    Doesn't mean you're always going to be able to meet the model.

    Unfortunately, I think Biden might be too old in '16, unless he comes from a long-lived family and is in excellent health himself.
     
  12. bphillip54 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2015
    He may have a problem because of 23rd amendment that makes the vice president second in line for president. If Obama is a VP after serving two terms he may not be president but he can not assume the presidency if the president leaves office. The 22nd precludes any one serving more than two terms no matter how the terms are served.
     
  13. jpj1421 Hillary 2020 - ChAOs rEiGns

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Location:
    Outside Philly
    Well, I would agree that's how the 22nd Amendment should be interpreted, though I personally opposed the Amendment, but technically it doesn't say that. The 22nd Amendment places a ban on being elected to the office of President more than twice. If you were Vice President and the President died or resigned...you weren't elected to the office and so aren't in violation of the 22nd Amendment. Technically.

    This is irrelevant to the the actual question at hand though and would almost certainly not happen anyway.
     
  14. fluttersky ~ᴍeʀmᴀiᴅ iɴ a seᴀ oғ aɴoᴍiᴇ~

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2014
    Location:
    Earth
    Judging by the wording of this law, it sounds like Obama can easily seek to become VP. There's a very long line of succession to the POTUS, starting with the VP and progressing through various political offices. Would a former-two-term-president be barred from holding any of those offices? No.

    IANAL but it seems quite clear that a Clinton/Obama (or Sanders/Obama) ticket in 2016 would be legal..
    Whether Obama would actually do this is, of course, a different matter.
     
  15. jpj1421 Hillary 2020 - ChAOs rEiGns

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Location:
    Outside Philly
    Yeah, if Obama does as well as Hillary did IOTL I could see her extending the offer, and him possibly accepting. Vice President is a very secure position to run for President from after all. But, Hillary was almost certainly going to select Evan Bayh for the position. I could see Obama trouncing Bayh in a contested primary in 2016 I suppose.
     
  16. Dathi THorfinnsson Daði Þorfinnsson

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2007
    Location:
    Syracuse, Haudenosaunee, Vinland
    Nope.

    Amendment 12 says, inter alia,
    So, if he's not eligible for President, he's not for Vice President, either.
     
  17. jpj1421 Hillary 2020 - ChAOs rEiGns

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Location:
    Outside Philly
    But you could argue that they are eligible for President...they're just not eligible to run for President. There's a difference. I don't actually think anyone would argue that was the intent, but it is a Constitutional gray area.

    From Wikipedia:
    It's a stupid technicality, and ungermane to the question at hand, but there you go.
     
  18. HeavyCrown Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2015
    Putin

    ITTL, Obama wouldn't have to deal with Putin or even ISIS for very long. Putin promised he would step down by 2019. If Obama succeeds McCain or Romney, American soldiers are still in Iraq and Ukraine and the Syrian Opposition are better supported. If Hillary, she withdraws the troops from Iraq, but I'm not sure how much more she supports the Syrian Opposition and Ukraine.
     
  19. Just a Rube Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2012
    I think you are being massively overoptimistic on both fronts. Putin may step down formally, but that's different than being powerless (he stepped down as president before after being term-limited, and just ruled through Medvedev). And of course, whoever succeeds him may be just as bad.

    As for ISIS, it really depends. The roots of ISIS trace back to the Iraq War and its aftermath; that's all pre-POD. I'm skeptical of the effectiveness of better support to the opposition; the US has a very bad track record on that (see Vietnamization, Iraqification, etc.). If Syria still collapses into civil war (or if Iraq remains its dubiously stable self), then a militant Sunni Islamist group seems very likely to emerge, just from the kindling already available. And if a President McCain or Romney manages to bring about a war with Iran (which would necessarily destabilize the Iraqi government completely), then things probably get even worse.