Vice Presidency transformation?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

From 1960 to 2000 every incumbent Vice President, when seat was open, ran (and was nominated) for President: Richard Nixon in 1960, Hubert Humphrey in 1968, George H. W. Bush in 1988 and Al Gore in 2000. In addition, Nixon (1968) and Mondale (1984) became nominees after their Vice Presidencies (Quayle was the only who never became a nominee, even if he briefly tried in 2000).

Since Nixon transformed the office, the Vice President became an heir apparent not only in a case of President's death or resignation, but also in electoral terms.

2000 marked a change. When Cheney was nominated for Vice President, he made it clear he won't run for President in future and, naturally, he didn't.

Now, we have Biden, a guy who'd just love to be President, but, if reelected, he'll be 74 in 2016. I doubt he'd be able to run a presidential campaign again.

Are we witnessing a transformation of the Vice Presidential role from being a desired electoral heir to something else?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Maybe to elderly adviser? That was the main reason for picking Cheney, and in fact, when looking for a Secretary of Defense, Cheney was passed over because, according to Rumsfeld (I've read part of his auto-biography), it would've distracted from his role as all-around adviser. The other thing would be to add experience, which Cheney wasn Biden both did.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Maybe to elderly adviser? That was the main reason for picking Cheney, and in fact, when looking for a Secretary of Defense, Cheney was passed over because, according to Rumsfeld (I've read part of his auto-biography), it would've distracted from his role as all-around adviser. The other thing would be to add experience, which Cheney wasn Biden both did.

Right, both Cheney and Biden fits the category of an elder, experienced man just behind the President. If Obama wanted to follow the previous model, he'd pick someone like Tim Kaine.

[milhouse24]

The purpose of the VP is (1) to help win the election by being a campaign asset in swing states and (2) having enough experience to take over the presidency. 

Cheney was an anomaly.  Because (1) he was in charge of the VP selection committee for Dubya, and he just picked himself to be VP because he wanted the power.  Sure he had elderly insider experience, but so did potential VP candidates of Orrin Hatch, Lamar Alexander, and McCain.  Cheney was the puppet master who controlled much of Dubya's life and Dubya wasn't a "leader" he was an mba grad who "delegated" everything to Cheney.  Besides Dubya knew he would win Florida because Jeb Bush served as a pseudo-campaign surrogate who would help win Florida. 

Whenever a President chooses a VP who lacks experience or intelligence, they are burned badly - like Quayle, John Edwards, or Sarah Palin. 

Biden was chosen because he had experience, but he also had regional appeal in Virginia, which is near Delaware.  Biden is also Catholic and appealed to white catholic swing voters in Ohio.  Similarly Al Gore helped Bill Clinton win Tennessee and Kentucky, and he had many years of Senate experience. 

As far as the VP being a stepping stone, I think that is the least of the President's concerns.  He chooses the VP to win the election today, not an election 8 years from now.  Obama could have chosen Hillary, but knew that she would be more concerned with her own future 8 years later.  Reagan was not thinking that GHWB would succeed him, they were the oldest pair to win the white house.  So the VP succession has always been a myth that only the media cares about; and bad political candidates. 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Altho with Hillary, might we be returning to an era where Secretaries of State have an actual shot at being the next nominee?