One reason I think there are strong feelings with the VP selection

[pinkstarburst]

is because there seems to be this overwhelming sentiment among some that whomever is chosen as VP is automatically "next in line" to be president. I see this posted all the time on DU. With Kamala Harris, there were numerous posts about how no way could someone else be put on the ticket because the base wouldn't stand for someone taking her rightful place in line. (This is not a dig at Harris, btw. I am thrilled that she is the candidate, she is the best and only candidate, and I love the current energy. This is simply to reinforce my point that there is a lot of this sentiment going around.)

The situation with Biden was unusual and not likely to be repeated. But I think one reason some many feel strongly about Harris's VP pick is because does it lock us into another 16 years of having no say in who our democratic candidate for president will be? To me, it feels that way. If (God willing) she wins in November and serves her 8 years, will there be calls of (her VP) is next in line, and how dare anyone primary them because if you primary X, it's anti-Semitic, or it's ageist, or anti-LGBT? As a voter, I want to get to vote. I want to have my say. I think it's important that whoever is chosen, we have a full primary the next time around and we get away from thinking that the VP (chosen by one person) is automatically the next nominee. The voters need to decide.

[getagrip_already]

1. That is only a recent trend, not a historical one...

VP's have never been an automatic choice for nomination as presidential nominee. Many have been passed over or merely chosen not to run.

Biden chose not to run in 2016 for example. And cheney chose not to run.

Its not an automatic anointment, though it can lead there.

[jg10003]

2. Dan Quayle wasn't nominated in 2000

[NH Ethylene]

3. There is also the tendency to want to avoid a bruising primary.

And the VP has the incumbent advantage from the start. But you are right. There should always be vigorous competition.

[MadameButterfly]

9. We overdo the bruising primary thing

Primaries help us get to know the candidates and find out who can handle a general election. Remember how much better Obama was by the end of the primary? At first he was considered professorial and he said "um" alot. Hillary's attacks brought out the best in him, like the "More Perfect Union" speech. Despite a bitter primary he made her Secretary of State.

Primaries so bad that we can't recover in the general are the exception, not the norm. Trying to skip the primary gets us the wrong candidate and disenfranchises voters.

[Demsrule86]

14. I don't think that is true...

Let's see Carter face a primary
Kerry faced a primary
Hillary Clinton faced a primary
Gore faced a primary

President Obama was the only one that I can think of...as Biden had run before for the presidency.

[MadameButterfly]

19. I'm not sure what you are saying isn't true

Carter was primaried by Teddy Kennedy as an imcumbent and that was damaging in part because Kennedy's speech at the convention was for himself, not for Carter. Yes, the party must come together after the primary.

Kerry, Hillary and Gore were not incumbents so of course they faced primaries.
I'm not say primaries are the exception, only that it's the exception that a primary is damaging enough to cause defeat in the general. i don't blame the primaries for Kerry's, Hillary's, and Gore's defeat.

Obama also faced a primary the first time around. As did Carter and Bill Clinton. Primaries don't predict defeat.

[CoopersDad]

4. KR for this important conversation because, in the end, age does matter.

I think about age more than other demographics but they all matter.

A healthy party would encourage a healthy competition during primaries every cycle so that the VP is never assumed to be the candidate.

As mentioned above, the dilemma doesn't happen every cycle.

And, I was thinking that some of the "strong feelings" might come from a feeling that we didn't get to vote for this candidate; that she became the candidate through circumstances.

TBH, she wasn't my favorite when she was running for office but I've grown to lover her totally!

[pinkstarburst]

8. Yes, I think you are correct

about the unusual circumstances of this year coming into play and lending themselves to the strong feelings people are having. I guess I'm just looking down the road and wondering if I'll even get to vote in 2032 at all...

This is not a dig at Kamala. I am thrilled she is our candidate this year. She is the best, the most talented and I am thrilled with the energy and momentum we have. But as a voter, I want to get to vote. If she nominates someone who is not Pete Buttigieg, that is fine, but I want to be able to vote for Pete in 8 years, not have it assumed that the VP is our presumptive nominee. And I'm assuming people pulling for someone else feel the same if she nominates Pete. The voters need to get a say (allowing for the fact that this year was extremely unusual and likely won't happen again.)

[CoopersDad]

10. Her VP should be someone we will LOVE to become her successor, absolutely.

Oddly, POTUS ran his race to follow DJT and wasn't elected as the VP of a sitting president, but maybe age should have been a consideration, or maybe it could have been communicated that he would serve one term.

I'm already old but am still smart enough not to think age isn't important. We all age, and our aging typically accelerates.
Eight years is a long time if you're starting off in your 70s.

Joe Biden was born in 1942 and served us very well, even heroically, be we need to bring younger people into government locally and nationally.

[question everything]

5. Sitting V.Ps do not win elections. The only exception was Bush Sr. because too many

wanted a third Reagan term.

Clearly what we have now is an exception but otherwise V.P.s have to work on their own platform to separate themselves from the current one.

[Sky Jewels]

6. Yes, that's a big reason I feel very strongly about the decision.

If it were just "well, this person helps win this state, and that person helps win that state or region" it wouldn't be as big a deal. But the veep becomes the primary person considered to be next in line for the presidential nomination.

[pinkstarburst]

7. Yes, this is why I feel so strongly about it

I wouldn't care if I thought they would just be VP and we would get a true primary down the road. But I feel like my vote is going to be taken away.

I love Kamala Harris and could not be more excited that she is our candidate for 2024. But I want to be able to have a full primary in 2032, not have it assumed that one person's choice will be the nominee.

[Demsrule86]

13. I suggest you consider that we may not have an election in 2032 if Trump wins. And we can't win without

Pennsylvania. Primaries are a means to an end...pick a viable candidate and win the General. They are not that important in the scheme of things. And an incumbent like Shapiro would be a great candidate to win the presidency...imagine 16 years of Democratic governance? I want to win the General. I don't give a damn about primaries.

[MadameButterfly]

16. I feel we have an amazingly deep bench

of potential candidates who didn't even get to vie for the nomination. I like Kamala and these were unusual circumstances but I mourn the exciting primary season we could have had. Four years from now it will be Kamala again. She's great but maybe my 4th or 5th choice among an array of outstanding people.

I'm not so worried that her VP will be an automatic shoe in. She needs to pick who is needed now, not who should be the nominee 8 years from now. I just hope the amazing politicians who didn't get to run this time won't be too old 8 years from now.

[Demsrule86]

15. WE will lose without PA...and may not even have elections again. This is not a regular year.

I don't care who runs almost a decade from now...I want to save the Republic this year and it is foolish to take unnecessary chances when Trump doesn't want us to pick Shaprio this shows we should pick him.

[Demsrule86]

11. Nope wrong...other than Bush I that never happens. The reason is simple we can't win without Pennsylvania.

And Shapiro brings us PA...oh and Trump agrees that 'we will lose' the Palestinian vote' if we pick Shapiro...AKA Trump can't win without PA either. And he desperately want Shapiro not to be our VP nominee...and I am sorry to say...since all VP candidates agree on this issue...and Shapiro the only Jewish candidate is being singled out it reeks of anti-semitism too. Consider that Jamal Bowman lost his primary in New York. This could cost us the election.

[JI7]

12. People are always passionate about VP choices

[dsc]

17. The following VPs have become President since 1900

Teddy Roosevelt (McKinley assassinated)
Calvin Coolidge (Harding died in office)
Harry Truman (FDR died in office)
Lyndon Johnson (Kennedy died in office)
Richard Nixon (ran in 68 after serving as VP from 53 to 61)
Gerald Ford (Nixon resigned)
George HW Bush (ran in 88 while serving as VP from 81 to 89)
Joe Biden (ran in 20 after serving as VP from 09 to 17)

In addition the following were nominees but lost
Richard Nixon (ran in 60 while serving as VP from 53 to 61)
Hubert Humphrey (ran in 68 while serving as VP from 65 to 69)
Walter Mondale (ran in 84 after serving as VP from 77 to 81)
Al Gore (ran in 00 while serving as VP from 93 to 01)
Kamala Harris (running now while serving from 21 to 25)

There have been 25 VP in that time frame. That is about a 1/3 chance of becoming President (slightly less if Harris loses, slightly more if Harris wins) and a nearly 1/2 chance of becoming a nominee. It is quite reasonable to think a VP has a pretty decent chance of becoming President someday and very reasonable to think they will become a nominee someday.

[FemDemERA]

18. Who runs in 2028 is not a big concern for me today.

The VP is a heartbeat away from becoming POTUS. That is why I care about the choice. I believe it should be one of the top three considerations when a candidate considers a running mate. The need to win the election is critical (especially now) but so too is the ability to step into those shoes should the need arise.

So for me, they have to be 1. capable of governing, 2. capable of winning AND 3. compatible with the future POTUS. Harris has a good slate to choose from and I trust she is considering all of these things. Biden chose well and Harris will too.

[Bad Thoughts]

20. Why is negative attention focused on one candidate?

Maybe it's the case that people are looking ahead, but they are trying to deny one candidate, not promote their favorite.