Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Yuri Bezmenov's avatar

Here’s a crazy idea: Maybe people should be selected for important jobs based on merit, not their race and gender. Lest we forget Kamala won 2% of the 2020 democrat primary vote and called Biden racist at one of the debates.

Expand full comment
Andrew S's avatar

This whole piece feels like it ignores Obama-Biden '08.

Obama chose a governing partner -- or at the very least, an old white guy who could reassure voters wary of a young Black guy -- not a successor.

Yet despite the assertion in the piece that "if the VP isn’t seen as the natural successor, it may lead to a lot of questions," there were no questions about Obama's strategy at the time -- indeed, it was widely seen as the right one.

Bush-Cheney '00 feels similar -- a wisened veteran paired with a younger guy that some people had concerns about. No one expected Cheney to run after Bush's terms.

So two of the three President-VP combos of the 21st century (prior to Biden-Harris) don't follow the supposed rule that you need to pick a future presidential nominee. (While of course Biden did become a nominee, that's more incidental than anything. He became the nominee four years after he was out of office. Far as I can tell, every other person identified as having run for president post-VP did so at the first available opportunity -- either immediately following a term-limited president, or in the next election after a loss for a one-term president.)

So why is Nate so convinced that presidents must choose a VP who would be a viable successor? It seems like there are multiple logical paths to making that choice.

Expand full comment
84 more comments...

No posts