all 9 comments

[–]weavilsatemyface 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

What is the point of a VP?

I used to think that being VP was a step up the ladder towards President, but it seems that VPs are more often know-nothing losers promoted up and sidewise to a dead-end job that goes nowhere. Think of Dan Quayle, and the current VP Harris.

In modern US politics (post WW2) has there ever been a VP who went on to become President in his own right?

Enquiring minds want to know.

[–]CaelianPost No Toasties 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

What is the point of a VP?

Mostly a back-up in case the President vapor-locks, and a tie-beaker in the Senate. Someone once described the US vice-presidency as worth "a bucket of warm spit" or something similar.

The US VP used to be the guy who got the second-most votes for President in the Electoral College. So the President and VP were the top two opponents and usually hated each other and there wasn't any coöperation. The idea of a "running mate" came later.

H/T Clint Eastwood for "vapor-locks" 😺

[–]CaelianPost No Toasties 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

In modern US politics (post WW2) has there ever been a VP who went on to become President in his own right?

If I understand your question, the answer is yes: HST, LBJ, RMN, George HW Bush, and of course Brandon. I won't include Gerald Ford since he wasn't elected president.

[–]NetweaselContinuing the struggle 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I won't include Gerald Ford since he wasn't elected president.

He wasn't elected VP either....

[–]risistill me 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

I'm old enough to remember when Trump hinted he might give Romney a position and Romney stopped criticizing Trump.

[–]ageingrockstar 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

If you look at Trump's actual answer to the question quoted in the article, at no point does Trump 'hint' that Ramaswamy could be his VP.

Instead, he just gives some 'vague and noncommittal' (MSNBC's formulation) praise for the guy. All that means is that Trump hasn't chosen to slap him down yet, seeing it as not currently in his interests to do so. Having various new contenders for very distant second place in the Republican race suits Trump, and so Ramaswamy taking the lead (currently) from De Santis has suited Trump.

My feeling is that there's absolutely no chance of Trump choosing Ramaswamy as his VP. The choice wouldn't be favoured by his base and also, I don't think Trump would personally want him as VP, because he's too obviously ambitious.

[–]BlackhaloPurity Pony: Pусский бот 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

there's absolutely no chance of Trump choosing Ramaswamy as his VP.

I sure hope that is true. But Trump does need someone with a better feel for staffing, in the event he is elected. He sure as hell does not need a repeat of his last admin, with losers at AG, FBI, State, CIA etc. One wonders how does he get MAGA friendly appointments?

[–]MeganDelacroix🤡🌎 detainee[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The Heritage Foundation, the Federalist Society, and the America First Policy Institute having been working steadily on that for some time now, by all accounts.

edit: The Economist story on AFPI, 07/23

[–]MeganDelacroix🤡🌎 detainee[S] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Right. He's the epitome of u/Caelian's Cassius reference.