Cactus muses on how Edwards should position himself to eventually run for president again:
If you do become kingmaker, what do you want for it? The obvious slot is the VP slot. But, in recent decades, the only veep to go on to get an upgrade (without the president dying or being forced out of office, which isn't something you can count on happening) was GHW, and it didn't hurt that he ran against Michael Dukakis.
The VP slot seems to be a lot less important than it used to be. Thoughts on why this is?
If a couple hundred people had pressed the right button in Florida, Gore would be your second VP to become president in 12 years.
When we elect an incumbant VP, it's probably because we liked their running mate and want seconds. But we seem to be getting sick of our Presidents after 4-6 years these days. GHW we got sick of so fast we didn't even reelect him, consigning the idea of President Quayle to the dustbing of history. Gore didn't get elected in part because while a majority of us liked Clinton, we were tired of him and wanted something different, so Gore felt compelled to run away from Clinton's record rather than on it. GWB we're so tired of that Cheney isn't even bothering to run.
Why are we getting tired of out Presidents so fast? My guess would be improved communications technology (24 news networks, blogs, etc) and the perpetual campaign they've generated give us more exposure to them, and in a less positive light.
Or it could just be sample size. We're only talking about 3 of the last 4 VPs not becoming President, and one of the losers lost reelection as VP, and another only lost his Presidential bid by the narrowest of narrow margins.
Sample size.
Cheney was never going to run; that was said when he was first picked, and was part of the criticism of the selection.
Former VPs still do a good job of getting the nomination when they seek it. (Failed VP candidates, not so much.)
Republican formula for nomination:
1) The Next in Line, meaning
a) Sitting VP, if he runs
b) Guy who finished second in the last seriously contested primary, if no sitting VP. Running and losing is now bar.
Democratic formula for nomination:
1) Former VP
2) Somebody new; never anyone who ran and lost.
It's not.
In the 20th Century only one vice president has gone on to become president without the president dying or being forced out of office: George H.W. Bush. TR became president after McKinley's assassination. Calvin Coolidge took over after Warren Harding's death. And we all know how Harry Truman and LBJ took office. As Eisenhower's vice president, Richard Nixon lost to JFK in 1960. Obvioulsy he wasn't a vice presdent when he finally won the office in 1968.
The vice presidency has never been a very good stepping stone for the presidency.
Mortimer Madler has it. The VP -> P transition has actually been rather uncommon through the ballot box. The only examples other than those mentioned already are John Adams, Jefferson, and Van Buren. Adams and Jefferson are obviously special cases due to being both founders of the USA and having achieved the vice presidency in the old style of receiving the 2nd highest vote count in the presidential election.
So really that leaves only 2 solid examples throughout all of US history, Van Buren and GHWB.
Yeah, VP never was important, except in balancing the ticket. Once elected, they usually had nothing to do except wait around for a tie vote in the Senate.
The VP slot actually seems to have been relatively useful in recent years compared to historically. Maybe you didn't win the Presidency, but at least you got the nomination (Gore, Bush 41, Mondale, Humphrey, Nixon) in addition to the ones who succeeded directly (Ford, LBJ, Truman).
But, in recent decades, the only veep to go on to get an upgrade (without the president dying or being forced out of office, which isn't something you can count on happening) was GHW...
It seems to me 1968 ought to count as "recent" decade, at least to an ancient 41 year old like me.
Plus, being VP most certainly is a huge advantage in taking your party's nomination, which is a requirement to becoming president.
But the thing is, it's kinda weird being the running mate on two different occasions. Is there any precedent for it? My guess is it's all moot, because Hillary is going to start trending toward 50%+ in the primaries. But if I'm wrong, I think the attorney generalship is the more plausible sinecure for Edwards. At least that's what the internets are saying Obama's offering Edwards.
I'd say that it isn't. We've have 46 vice presidents in the history of the union. Of those 46, 14 have gone on to become president. Of those 14, five (Andrew Johnson, Chester Arthur, Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Lyndon Johnson) became president when the president they were serving under died in office. The sixth, Gerald Ford, became president upon the resignation of Nixon. So eight vice-presidents have actually gone on to be elected to the presidency without help from the Reaper. And two of those six were our first two vice presidents ever, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.
The question isn't "Why isn't the vice-presidency the stepping stone that it used to be?" The question is, "Why isthe vice-presidency regarded as ever having been a stepping stone to the presidency?"
I don't know. Al Gore almost made it. The only reason the VP hasn't been important the last 8 years is that the post has been occupied by Dick Cheney, a man with no apparent presidential ambition.
So, it's only because of a fluke in Florida and a personal choice made by George W. that the VP seems less important.
Before George HW Bush we had Walter Mondale, who was nominated by the Democratic party to run for President in 1984. Before that Gerald Ford was Vice President before taking over from Nixon in 1974. So it seems to me that Vice Presidents have at least as good a shot as anyone of becoming President.
Even TR knew the VP position was a joke. He would have preferred to keep his governorship of NY rather than accept the post as Mckinley's VP.
The question is, "Why isthe vice-presidency regarded as ever having been a stepping stone to the presidency?"
Nate W: Because the Vice Presidency is a stepping stone to the presidency. The figures you cite indicate nearly a third of our VPs have gone on to become president. That's a far higher share than any other elected office. Moreover, I don't see why people discount deaths and resignations. Have US presidents stumbled upon an immortality elixir I'm unaware of? Finally, the chances for jumping from VP to P look even better when you consider VP presidentital candidates (Gore, Mondale, Humphrey) who managed to take their party's nomination. Sure, those particular three didn't win the general election, but you still need to take the nomination to have a shot at the White House.
The sample size is far too small to draw any meaningful inferences.
There have been roughly 45 people to be vice president and 14 of them have become president, first through an election. That makes it a better stepping stone than any other job. So that's certainly one reason to be interested in the position.
Also, while death and resignation are non-democratic methods of selection, several that did take the office after those tragedies were subsequently elected. So by this measure, TR doesn't count, yet he went on to win two terms after William McKinley died.
Have US presidents stumbled upon an immortality elixir I'm unaware of?
Well, they certainly don't die in office at the rate they used to. Harding died of natural causes in 1923, and FDR of same in 1945. I'd say FDR is a bit of an outlier, since he was in office longer than any other President (and we definitely know if he'd retired after two terms he wouldn't've died in office). Since FDR, we've only lost one (Kennedy, to assassination, of course). The recent 44-year-run without a President dying in office is beaten only by the initial 65 from the founding of the Republic until William Henry Harrison. Over all, we've lost, on mean, a President every 25 years.
I suspect this isn't because the President has an immortality elixir, but because of three things - he (or she!) probably has some of the best healthcare in the world (both preventative and reactive - would Reagan have survived Hinkley if it had been 1881?); we've gotten very, very serious about security; and the televised primaries now tend to discriminate against particularly sickly or decrepit candidates in a way that didn't happen in the era of newspapers.
In any event, it doesn't seem unreasonable to say, "For the first 150 (or so) years of the Republic, it was a good strategy to be Vice President, because your President had a good chance of dying in office. Now, it's not as good a strategy, because it's much less likely he'll die in office."
"The VP slot seems to be a lot less important than it used to be."
On the heels of, quite possibly, the most powerful VP in American history - I don't buy that. And Gore demonstrated pretty convincingly what a proper wonk can accomplish in that office. I'd bet people will be paying very close attention to VP's for a few election cycles.
If you want to be President some day, far better to become Governor somewhere than to become VP. This time looks likely to be one of the exception (unless Romney sneaks thru). But over the last century, being a Governor (or ex-Governor) has been the best stepping stone.
"The VP slot seems to be a lot less important than it used to be. Thoughts on why this is?"
With Richard Cheney in charge since 2000, I think the VP slot is really important and will be.
John Edwards should gun for an administrative position. I think something high profile, in the public eye that could set him up for a run in 4 or 8 years.
Of those 14, five (Andrew Johnson, Chester Arthur, Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Lyndon Johnson) became president when the president they were serving under died in office.
Eight presidents died in office. Aside from the four who were assassinated, William Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Warren Harding, and Franklin Roosevelt died of natural causes.
But over the last century, being a Governor (or ex-Governor) has been the best stepping stone.
Nonsense. You're all looking at the numbers in too cursory a fashion. Ask yourself: how many governors have held office "over the last century?" Surely the number must exceed 500, right? What percentage of them have gone on to win the White House? I'd guesstimate it's only 1% or so.
Then ask yourself how many vice presidents have served, and how many of them have gone on to take the White House. By my hasty count, something like twenty vice presidents have held office in the last century, and seven of them have made it to the presidency. Thirty five percent beats one percent by a country mile. And that's not including the several additional VPs who won the nomination and lost the general election (winning the former obviously is a pretty helpful stepping stone to the latter).
For the argument, let's throw in the VPs who were nominated and lost--Humphrey, Mondale.
The VP spot post-World War II is sort of a Presidential internship program. After four years, you're either eliminated from contention (Quayle) or a solid choice for your party. (Nixon, HHH, Mondale, Bush 41, Gore.)
Look at it this way: How many sitting VPs have failed to at least get their party's nomination? Nixon got it, twice. (1 for 1)
So did Humphrey. (2 for 2)
Agnew didn't, but he had to resign (went to jail?). (2 for 3)
Ford became President. (3 for 4)
Rockefeller got blackballed. (3 for 5)
Mondale got nominated. (4 for 6)
Bush 41 was a President. (5 for 7)
Gore was nominated. (6 for 8)
Cheney will not be nominated (6 for 9).
Being Vice President is a pretty good stepping stone to the Presidency.
Being nominated for VP on a losing ticket, on the other hand, is a big ol' bag of nothing. Ask Estes Kefauver, George Miller, Ed Muskie, Sargent Shriver, Bob Dole '76, Geraldine Ferraro, Jack Kemp, Joe Lieberman, or John Edwards.
Having laid out the numbers in the post above, I'd advise Edwards to do whatever he can to be Obama's VP.
This post is making a logical error.
The question is not "is the VP likely to become president," it is "is a politician MORE likely to become president if she becomes VP (or VP nominee) vs. if she doesn't."
There are several recent politicians who at least came much closer to being president after being VP than they likely ever would have otherwise: GHWB, Gore, Mondale, Humphrey, Nixon.
Can you think of anyone who became LESS likely to be president because he was VP, or VP nominee?
Vice Presidents of the past frequently did come to office by death, but strangely enough, this seems to rarely have been a factor in their selection. No one seems to have actually thought that Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, or Chester Arthur was presidential material. They were selected for ticket-balancing and suchlike reasons. Theodore Roosevelt was picked as McKinley's running mate as a way of kicking him upstairs from the position of Governor of New York, and the party bosses rued the day he became President instead. Furthermore, between 1836 (Van Buren) and 1960 (Nixon), no Vice President whose President survived his term received his party's subsequent nomination for President except John C. Breckinridge, who received the Southern Democratic nomination in 1860 when the party split in two along geographic lines. TR, LBJ, and maybe Truman are the only presidents-by-death who would have a had a serious chance at the nomination if their presidents had lived.
Megan's opening premise is also faulty in that the Vice Presidency, even though its holders did keep becoming President via death, was traditionally a powerless and unimportant post. Hannibal Hamlin relieved his boredom by serving as a private in the Maine Coast Guard during the Civil War while still serving as Vice President. Calvin Coolidge was the first Vice President to attend Cabinet meetings. Thomas Marshall (under Wilson) and John Nance Garner (under FDR) made light of their powerless situation with wisecracks, such as the latter's "The Vice Presidency is not worth a bucket of warm spit." (He probably actually said "piss.") Harry Truman served for over a month as Vice President and was never told that the atomic bomb was under development. And not only do Presidents die, Vice Presidents also die, and there was no constitutional provisions for replacing them, and no one considered this a pressing need until the 1960s. Nixon, even though he and Eisenhower did not really get along, was probably the first V.P. who had real influence and served as an ambassador for the U.S. abroad ("Kitchen Debate" with Khrushchev, ill-fated trips to Latin America).
"The VP slot seems to be a lot less important than it used to be. Thoughts on why this is?"
Increased professionalism of the Secret Service and super-high-tech medical care at Bethesda Naval Medical Center? Congressional unwillingness to make impeachment charges stick? Declining demand for warm buckets of spit?
For the record, OneEyedMan, TR was only elected once after McKinley's death, which happened so early in his term, that TR served just shy of two full terms. The fact that he had only been elected once allowed him to (somewhat disengeneously) claim that he was not exceeding Washington's traditional "two-term limit" by running in 1912 (an election he lost).
Nate W is missing three: John Tyler, Millard Filmore, and Calvin Coolidge all also became president on the death of the president they were serving. Whoever said that they don't die at the rate they used to seems to be missing one of the big historical numeralogical coincidences of US history: until Reagan survived an assassination wound that probably would have killed almost anyone who came before him, every president from 1840 onward elected in a year ending in "0" died in office. That seems pretty regular to me.
My impression is that Oildrilling Lunatic has it right. The VP is more important than ever. I'm not under the impression, although I could be completely wrong, that incumbent VP's played nearly as important a role in the 19th century as they have in my lifetime.
I'm genuinely curious to find out if future Vice Presidents will invoke the "4th branch of government" argument offered by Cheney.
If so, the VP might (interestingly) become more important than the President, being unauditable. Get some amiable fool in the White House, and put the guy who gets stuff done in the VP slot.
"Can you think of anyone who became LESS likely to be president because he was VP, or VP nominee?
Posted by ed | January 27, 2008 8:31 PM"
Dan Quayle went from being considered both smart and crazy to being borderline retarded and crazy. He would probably have run at some point if lemurs were allowed to be president.
Less important? Oh dear, someone hasn't been paying attention.
VPs have won their parties nomination in 2000, 1992, 1988, 1984, 1976, 1968, 1964...
And then there is the story of some guy named Dick Cheney.
"Can you think of anyone who became LESS likely to be president because he was VP, or VP nominee?"
Spiro Agnew went from essentially no chance to absolutely no chance.
The VP position seems to have had a declining value for becoming an elected president, but ascension because of other means is not insignificant, as history has shown.
This is all pretty irrelevant in the case under discussion- Edwards can't deliver the nomination to Clinton or Obama; he just doens't have enough real support.
Yeah, making conclusions fom tiny sample sizes is a waste of time, just like when people look for relationships between economic performance and the party which holds the White House. Punditry would improve immensely if pundits understood the probabilities underlying tossing a coin a few times, or if they did understand it, had the honesty to have that understanding inform their punditry.
Yes, ones chances of being President are improved if one is VP, but that is only definitively true because the VP is next in line if the President takes a dirt nap, or has to quit.
Can you think of anyone who became LESS likely to be president because he was VP, or VP nominee?
Joe Lieberman?
I don't see why people discount deaths and resignations.
So Edwards' best chance of being President some day is to be Obama's running mate, and then keep on talking up the Obama/JFK similarities.
I don't see how you can say the VP slot is unimportant. Cheney is the obvious example, though his "power" is basically that power delegated from the President because he would rather clear brush than deal with foreign policy.
As far as VPs succeeding to the Presidency, I would suspect it depends to a large degree on the perception of their President. GHWB capitalized on the popularity of Reagan, Gore was hindered by the unpopularity in some quarters of Clinton, etc. VPs for better or worse are tagged with the record of their President. Since the next President is going to be faced with some particularly daunting problems thanks to the current admin's ineptitudes, I would be leery of pushing too hard for the #2 seat.
"I suspect this isn't because the President has an immortality elixir, but because of three things - he (or she!) probably has some of the best healthcare in the world (both preventative and reactive - would Reagan have survived Hinkley if it had been 1881?)"
Unfortunately presidents do not really get the best health care in the world. They get military health care often by higher ranking doctors who know less than the lower ranking ones who are busy treating patients, and in any case are used to treating a much younger and healthier patient population. They certainly get as much health car as money can buy, but that does not actually translate into "best" health care.
To put it another way, historically, a Secretary of State has been elected President six times*, which is more than a Vice President who didn't complete someone else's term as President (five times†). But no Secretary of State has been nominated for the Presidency by a major party since James G. Blaine (1884), and none has won since James Buchanan (1856). (William Jennings Bryan was nominated before he became a Secretary of State, not after.)
On the other hand, Vice Presidents who did not succeed to the office have been their party nominees six times in the last fifty years (1968 featuring a duel of Vice Presidents), won twice (1968 and 1988), and came close twice (1960 and 2000).
This suggests that in recent years, the Vice Presidency has become a markedly better stepping stone for the Presidency than it was historically, while the office of Secretary of State has become markedly worse.
*Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren, and James Buchanan.
†John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Martin Van Buren, Richard Nixon, George H.W. Bush. Yep, it duplicates the SoS list twice.
"Can you think of anyone who became LESS likely to be president because he was VP, or VP nominee?
Hubert Humphrey. He likely could have gained the Democratic nomination on his own, and could have beat Nixon if he hadn't been associated with Lyndon Johnson's failed Vietnam policy.
More generally, short of a serious scandal in office, being the incumbent VP to a President that's not running again is nearly a guarantee of the party nomination, but is more likely than not to be a disadvantage in the general election. A Veep running for President while still in office can't run against the sitting President's record, so it's hard to be his own man. To the extent that record was bad, it carries over to the Veep; to the extent that it was good, it may carry over, or it may invite comparisons with the old President to the Veep's disadvantage. Beyond all that, voters often simply get tired of having the same party in power after 8 years.
It might be better for the Veep (and his party) if he could sit at least one election out and get back in the race after a 4 or 8 year break - but they're reluctant to do that, because they'll probably not get the nomination again, and because any job an ex-Veep can take is a step down. Nixon managed to lose an election, drop nearly out of sight, and come back to win the nomination and election 8 years later, but that was very much the exception to the usual course of politics.
And of course, first a Veep candidate has to be elected - and the election isn't his to win, but he'll be branded as a loser along with his running mate if they lose. Some have overcome this to run as President later and win, but I suspect the losing run never helps.
Of course, if you can pick the next Reagan (someone who can be the President 8 years and leave the voters wanting more) and become his VP running mate, you've got it made - for one term... But Reagan's are pretty rare.
Sample size too small. VPs have as much or as little power as the president grants and that depends. Let us now consider the choices before us.
On the Republican side the race is now between McCain and Romney. If McCain gets the nomination, his VP pick will be closely scrutinized because of mcCain's advanced age and because they need to fire up the enthusiasm of conservatives. I think he'll pick Romney for many reasons: reconciliation, appeal to tax-cutters, relative youth, executive experience, etc. If Romney gets the nod, he might choose a Christian conservative senator like Santorum.
On the Democratic side, there is no chance for Edwards to get the VP nod. He's got too much baggage and claims the loyalty of, at best, 20% of Democrats. I think he's running for AG. The Clintons would never give him that job. Or maybe a judgeship.
Whomever Hillary Clinton chooses is going to be subordinate to Bill anyway, so who cares who she chooses, probably some white male governor. The voters won't care who she chooses, if they ever cared about the VP nominee, because they know that her top staffer and advisor will be Bill. Hillary's chances depend to a great extent on how the voters feel about returning Bill Clinton to the White House. Indeed, Bill Clinton's actual role in affairs will be similar to Cheney's, and the actual VP will probably spend his time attending funerals, presiding over the Senate, and reading the obituaries.
Obama will probably want to choose a white male with a lot of executive experience. Age and geography will not matter because of Obama's youth and broad appeal. Choosing a woman would shatter too many barriers at once. By admission, Obama is not the COO type. His VP might play that role. Are there any successful Democratic governors out there? In another post someone mentioned the governor of Kansas, home of Obama's mother, but her gender would play against her. Bill Richardson is a possibility. As a Latino he might fire up a part of the Democratic base that is not enthusiastic about an African-American candidate. He has foreign policy experience and I haven't seen anything negative about his governorship except some speeding tickets. For sure, an Obama-Richardson administration would restore a lot of the US's soft power in the world, just on appearances.
If spending 8 years at the elbow of a President means anything in terms of exposure, it's logical to presume that Hillary has more experience that way than any VP who has ever run for President, though she may not have had experience in exactly the same things as any VP had before he became VP.
When a nation has good knowledge and talent, it's illogical to merely throw it away - because the person is a woman.