Would dropping Biden in favor of Wasserman-Schultz help Obama?

[specific_name]

No just no.... changing VP's is almost never a good idea. FDR did it into a 3rd term and in a different climate entirely. Lincoln did it for the sake of a Union ticket, that was supposed to be bipartisan, hence Johnson being a Democrat. But what on Earth could Obama gain, he would only look indecisive and weak. He would rightly be attacked for making a bad choice in the first place, since by his own admission it would be a mistake - if not why change?

[Keystone Phil]

Wallace? Wallace was hated by most of the party machine and considered too "unstable" by many. Hardly a case with Biden.

Just proving that it isn't always a bad idea. 

[King]

But the reason I think Obama wants to make a change for a Female VP is because he thinks more about his long-term legacy and history books.

Thats a difference between Obama and President Bush. President Bush once said, as I think I have quoted him in this forum for before, "you know i read about George Washington, and if people are still writing and reading about the first President, the forty-first and forty-third have nothing to worry about."

Because some guy on an internet forum thinks Obama would do something retarded like that doesn't mean it's an official "difference between Obama and Bush."

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Redcommander is dethroning Pbrower as a King of 2012 board.

[TheGlobalizer]

This is a thread that literally made me facepalm.  Nobody cares about Joe Biden.  People who hate him would never vote Obama anyway.

[milhouse24]

I actually think Biden really wants to be Secretary of State and fly around everywhere.  He's marginalized as VP even though he is supposedly Obama's closest adviser.  It could be scandalous, but Biden has been publicly vocal about his preference for SoS, so it won't be totally shocking. 

But the reason I think Obama wants to make a change for a Female VP is because he thinks more about his long-term legacy and history books.  He has trouble with short term profits and goals.  It would be epic, legendary, and historic for him to appoint a Female VP even before 2012.  He would get a huge Public relations boost if he replaced Biden immediately, and the Senate had to vote unanimously for the first Female vice president.  I don't think Obama cares about re-election, as much as he cares about making historic movements.

At this time, July 2011, Obama's number one concern is to be reelected in November 2012.

Best way to do this?  Make advances in the economy, not fool around with the Vice Presidency.  He has a Vice President now who does not hurt the ticket.  He is not going to mess with that with a little over a year to go to the election.

Senate hearings, once they start digging and digging, can potentially come up with some very embarassing or damaging details on a nomnee for VP.  Do you really believe that Republican Senators will not dig up some details on a VP nominee a year before the election to damage the President?

If this should happen, Obama will look like the biggest idiot in Presidential history for making such a ridiculous move in the first place, and he would be done for.

In short, new VP ain't gonna happen.

Obama has said several times that he would be okay being a One-term president.  Right now, it looks like the economy will NOT Be improving in the next 6 months, no matter what he does.  I think this Debt ceiling debate will also hurt him no matter how it turns out - especially if it doesn't pass, then Obama and the citizens will really be screwed. 

Think about, the economy sucks, his polling is low - if he historically appoints a Female VP it will (1) make history and (2) give him a boost among Female swing voters.  Sure its a desperate move, but we are in desperate times.  I think the odds of Obama doing something drastic are better than you think.  He's a renegade after all. 

Also, these female VP are going to look like Einstein compared to Palin. 

[redcommander]

Redcommander is dethroning Pbrower as a King of 2012 board.

Right because all those other threads bringing up replacing Biden in favor of Cuomo, Gillibrand, or Clinton were my responsibility.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

I doubt much people outside her distric even know who she is

[phk]

No.

Very dumb idea until Jan 21, 2013 at the soonest.

[Lincoln Republican]

Obama has said several times that he would be okay being a One-term president.  Right now, it looks like the economy will NOT Be improving in the next 6 months, no matter what he does.  I think this Debt ceiling debate will also hurt him no matter how it turns out - especially if it doesn't pass, then Obama and the citizens will really be screwed.  

Think about, the economy sucks, his polling is low - if he historically appoints a Female VP it will (1) make history and (2) give him a boost among Female swing voters.  Sure its a desperate move, but we are in desperate times.  I think the odds of Obama doing something drastic are better than you think.  He's a renegade after all.  

Also, these female VP are going to look like Einstein compared to Palin.  

I do not believe for a moment that Obama would be satisfied with one term.  He is nothing if not ambitious.  And no, a little known Congresswoman is not going to help him one bit.  It would be seen for what it would be, pure pandering.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

95% of the people never heard of Wasserman-Schultz before, so generic reaction would be "he's pulling Palin".

[The Mikado]

This reminds me of the equally stupid talk that Bush was going to ditch Cheney in 2004.

[Keystone Phil]

This reminds me of the equally stupid talk that Bush was going to ditch Cheney in 2004.

...except Bush admitted that he was considering it. Obama wouldn't consider dumping Biden for Wasserman-Schultz.

[TheGlobalizer]

Remind me again, what problem does Wasserman-Schultz solve?

[J. J.]

Uh, no.

How many times has it been pointed out that firing your running mate is never a good idea?

FDR did it, and it didn't hurt him.

He ditched one of his VP's after he ran against FDR for re-nomination and the other because he was a bit of a nutcase who publicly bickered with other members of the Administration. Biden doesn't even begin to fall into either of those categories.

Even Eisenhower, in a super-safe 1956, did not drop Nixon, even if he wanted to.

Even Nixon, in a super-duper-duper safe 1972 did not drop Agnew, even if he really wanted to.

The only use of thread like this is giving people like redcommander an opportunity to show all of us that they don't know a jack ass about politics.

While Eisenhower was safe, Nixon was having problems with the right, and was actually worried about Reagan in 1972 and possibly Wallace again.  Agnew made sense politically, as he was the darling of the right.

Biden makes some sense, as he arguably helps in PA.  Wasserman-Schultz, in terms of FL, would make some sense as well, but think she is partisan enough to turn off independents.  Someone like a Feinstein would be better.

[milhouse24]

This reminds me of the equally stupid talk that Bush was going to ditch Cheney in 2004.

...except Bush admitted that he was considering it. Obama wouldn't consider dumping Biden for Wasserman-Schultz.

Exactly, and I think Bush would have made the change because he only narrowly beat Kerry.  But Cheney had too much power given by Bush to be replaced, and Bush wouldn't know what to do to run the country without Cheney - perhaps a good thing if that happened.  Cheney was replaceable because he never brought anything electorally to the table. 

Biden doesn't have much power or influence compared to Cheney; and will be easily replaceable in the right circumstances and for the right candidate.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

This reminds me of the equally stupid talk that Bush was going to ditch Cheney in 2004.

...except Bush admitted that he was considering it. Obama wouldn't consider dumping Biden for Wasserman-Schultz.

Exactly, and I think Bush would have made the change because he only narrowly beat Kerry.  But Cheney had too much power given by Bush to be replaced, and Bush wouldn't know what to do to run the country without Cheney - perhaps a good thing if that happened.  Cheney was replaceable because he never brought anything electorally to the table.  

Biden doesn't have much power or influence compared to Cheney; and will be easily replaceable in the right circumstances and for the right candidate.

No VP did compared to Cheney, but don't underestimate his power and influence.......these guys are joined at the hip outisde of the cameras.  Take a look at the White House schedule every day and you'll see everything of consequence includes Biden.  Replacing Biden is just crazy talk.

[Torie]

Yes, it would be grand if Obama inserted an abrasive liberal on his ticket. Go for it Barack!