Obama-Hagel

In 1944, there was talk that FDR might choose a liberal Republican like Wendell Willkie as his running mate. In the same year, "Some Republicans wanted to ask Democratic Senator Harry Byrd of Virginia to be the Republican running mate in order to pursue the Southern vote, but this possibility was not seriously pursued." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_vice_presidential_candidate_selection,_1944

In 1956, there was talk that Ike might dump Nixon in favor of a conservative Democrat like Frank Lausche.

In 1972, there was talk that John Connally, then still nominally a Democrat, might replace Spiro Agnew as Nixon's running mate.

In 2008, there was talk of a McCain-Lieberman (much more talk than of an Obama-Hagel) ticket.

In 2016 there was talk that Trump might name a Democrat (Jim Webb was the one most often mentioned) as his running mate.

Now there are various reasons none of these things came about, and the fact that something that is frequently talked about never happens doesn't mean it never could. But as with brokered conventions, one begins to suspect after a while that there must after all be a reason it never seems to happen....
 
In 1944, there was talk that FDR might choose a liberal Republican like Wendell Willkie as his running mate. In the same year, "Some Republicans wanted to ask Democratic Senator Harry Byrd of Virginia to be the Republican running mate in order to pursue the Southern vote, but this possibility was not seriously pursued." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_vice_presidential_candidate_selection,_1944

In 1956, there was talk that Ike might dump Nixon in favor of a conservative Democrat like Frank Lausche.

In 1972, there was talk that John Connally, then still nominally a Democrat, might replace Spiro Agnew as Nixon's running mate.

In 2008, there was talk of a McCain-Lieberman (much more talk than of an Obama-Hagel) ticket.

In 2016 there was talk that Trump might name a Democrat (Jim Webb was the one most often mentioned) as his running mate.

Now there are various reasons none of these things came about, and the fact that something that is frequently talked about never happens doesn't mean it never could. But as with brokered conventions, one begins to suspect after a while that there must after all be a reason it never seems to happen....

Well McCain's first choice was Lieberman, but it was just too difficult to pull off. If Lieberman caucused R from 2006 onwards, maybe that could have been different.
 
Well McCain's first choice was Lieberman, but it was just too difficult to pull off. If Lieberman caucused R from 2006 onwards, maybe that could have been different.

But that's sort of my point--even when someone from another party is actually the candidate's first choice, in the end the candidate finds it impossible to go through with the idea. And there is absolutely no reason to think Hagel would be Obama's first choice in 2008.
 
Hagel was mostly media speculation. Biden didn’t come out of nowhere. After all the debates, and their time in the Senate on the same side, Obama and Biden actually had a connection, a bond, that Obama knew he could trust and lean on for his candidacy and presidency.

When it comes to AH, a lot of tickets were just slapped together, Obama-Biden was not.
 
In 1944, there was talk that FDR might choose a liberal Republican like Wendell Willkie as his running mate. In the same year, "Some Republicans wanted to ask Democratic Senator Harry Byrd of Virginia to be the Republican running mate in order to pursue the Southern vote, but this possibility was not seriously pursued." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_vice_presidential_candidate_selection,_1944

In 1956, there was talk that Ike might dump Nixon in favor of a conservative Democrat like Frank Lausche.

In 1972, there was talk that John Connally, then still nominally a Democrat, might replace Spiro Agnew as Nixon's running mate.

In 2008, there was talk of a McCain-Lieberman (much more talk than of an Obama-Hagel) ticket.

In 2016 there was talk that Trump might name a Democrat (Jim Webb was the one most often mentioned) as his running mate.

Now there are various reasons none of these things came about, and the fact that something that is frequently talked about never happens doesn't mean it never could. But as with brokered conventions, one begins to suspect after a while that there must after all be a reason it never seems to happen....

I think this ironically proves why the scenario should go forward in the context of this board. If you were on a history message board your argument might effectively shut the conversation down. But considering where we are and what the forum is here for- exploring changes to the TL with a reasonable amount of plausibility (i.e. non-ASB)- you’ve just given half a dozen examples of why the what-if is worthy to pursue.

*Rhetorically* you might shut the conversation down by ignoring the OP and refusing to contribute the what-if style responses requested therein, but I do appreciate that you’re not just all-capsing “ASB! ASB!” at least. And the line isn't always clear, I'll admit that. Sometimes I can't see a way forward with a thread, but often all it takes is walking away and looking at it from a different angle for a bit. This one, though, the actual "how" is clear because we're not dealing with veto points or or anything so ironbound. It boils down to one man in charge with all the political will in the world making a decision. It's not ASB, there are reasons to proceed, so...what-if? If it's a doomsday scenario, let's hear it, I promise I'm not kidding when I tell you how curious I am to hear what you think might happen.
 
Top