Most Nominees don't pick a former primary opponent as VP

[Dem4Life1102]

Sure Obama did but that is the exception not the rule.

Trump picked Pence who didn't run in the GOP primaries in 16.
Bush II picked Cheney.
Clinton picked Gore.
Bush I picked Quayle.
Carter picked Mondale.
Nixon picked Agnew.
Eisenhower picked Nixon.

Going back almost 70 years there only 3 cases of a nominee picking a former primary opponent as VP, Johnson in 60, Bush in 80 and Biden in 08. More than twice as many times, they picked someone who didn't run against them in the primaries.

Now Biden might but it I wouldn't advise anyone to expect it.

[LisaM]

1. Correction.

Cheney picked Cheney.

[Dem4Life1102]

8. LOL :-)

[oldsoftie]

12. Thank you.Bush should have known right then that there was going to be trouble.

[Todd79]

49. Dubya should've known

But that fella wasn’t all that bright.

[MyOwnPeace]

87. As Ann Richards said:

“Poor George [Bush], he can't help it. He was born with a silver foot in his mouth.”

[nolawarlock]

405. I will never forget that burn. :-D n/t

[Ninga]

2. All bets are off. Do not agree. Biden will do what is best for the times and the people. Nt

[LisaM]

5. There didn't used to be women candidates

In the primary either. But it's been a great way for us to get to know these talented women.

[Ninga]

7. Yep!

[Dem4Life1102]

6. Biden needs to do what will help him win

[oldsoftie]

13. And thats ALL that matters at this point

[handmade34]

3. not a normal year

there are no precedents for anything anymore...

[William769]

4. You forgot Bartlet/Hoynes.

[left-of-center2012]

9. I've been repeatedly attacked because ...

I've posted Biden must choose a VP who is best qualified,
regardless of litmus tests
of race, gender, color, or having been a 2020 candidate.

[Dem4Life1102]

10. Biden must choose a VP who will help him win

otherwise nothing else matters.

[Sloumeau]

11. This is absolutely correct.

There are many women who can do the job, but none will do the job if Biden doesn't win. Electability is paramount.

[StarfishSaver]

14. Bill Clinton did, too

[Dem4Life1102]

15. Gore didn't run in 92

[StarfishSaver]

24. You're right. I was mistaken

[TeamPooka]

16. Gore was a former Presidential candidate though. He ran first in 1988. It was big news

when he did not run in 92.

[Dem4Life1102]

19. Yes he didn't run against Clinton

[Skya Rhen]

17. He needs a running mate who can help add a swing state. The electoral college is what matters.

[Dem4Life1102]

20. Exactly nt

[LakeArenal]

116. I don't want anyone who has made disparaging remarks about Joe

That eliminates most primary candidates.

There are many heroes that didn’t run.

Abrams, Porter, Demmings and Rice toname a few.

[Skya Rhen]

329. So true - we don't need video clips of of such disparaging remarks running 24/7 during the GE. No

unnecessary distractions.

We need to win and there are numerous qualified women that can help attain that goal - ones that don't have a history of a contentious relationship with our nominee that can be used against the ticket.

[lastlib]

363. I think that could be a big plus for Klobuchar.

I think she could be very helpful in swinging Wisconsin and Michigan. Maybe even Ohio. All else being equal, flipping those three would put D's over the top.

[bucolic_frolic]

18. It's an interesting observation

If you pick a former opponent, you want them to bring something to the ticket. A state, a following, geographic balance (many other options there), cash. Those who didn't win fell short for some reason. Voters' rejection is important to consider. Bernie has a following but I can't see the two ideologies getting together. So find a spark in the rest of the bunch or go with a smart, experienced outside choice.

[Polybius]

21. You didn't mention quite a few

Such as Romney, McCain, Kerry, Dole, Dukakis, Mondale, etc. Seems you only mentioned the winners for some reason.

Anyway, did Edwards run in 2004 when he was picked as VP?

[Dem4Life1102]

25. Yes

Why mention the losers?

[Polybius]

35. Why not?

They still got their Party's nomination for President that year.

[Dem4Life1102]

39. Losers aren't as relevant

[Polybius]

43. You have to mention them because your OP doesn't make exception

You said "Going back almost 70 years there only 3 cases of a nominee picking a former primary opponent as VP."

That's simply not true. There are four. John Kerry picked John Edwards in 2004. If you don't want to include him, you need to modify your op to "Going back almost 70 years there only 3 cases of a nominee that went on to win the GE picking a former primary opponent as VP."

Or just say 4. 2004 counts whether it was won or now.

[Dem4Life1102]

47. Losers aren't relevant

[thesquanderer]

50. It's your OP so that's your call, but it still means your subject line is in error.

"Most nominees who go on to win..." would be an accurate way to state it.

[Dem4Life1102]

55. Big deal

It’s just a silly gotcha point.

[H2O Man]

149. Respectfully disagree.

It is fine to say that you were focusing exclusively on the winning tickets, and that your wording was incorrect. It's not a big deal to say that you should have been clearer by including the word "winning." We all make such minor errors.

It is a larger error to say that the losing ticket doesn't count. First, you deny yourself the option of noting that picking a former primary candidate as VP may be a move that lessens the chances of victory, which would be consistent with the overall message of your OP. Second, being stubborn isn't a good quality when one makes a minor error -- life in an extended Irish-American family has provided me with solid evidence of that! (grin) Not to suggest that I am not, from time to time, prone to that same unattractive behavior. And third, projecting negative attributes to those who have correctly pointed out that the OP lacks one important word is a poor tactic to use when one is attempting to communicate a point you believe is important. They are not using a "just silly gotcha point." It's an important point that, if you simply noted you were focused exclusively on winning, would add to your position. And that would be so much more positive an approach.

I hope that you do not take this the wrong way. I'm not attacking you. I am suggesting that you have the option of expanding your original point.

[Dem4Life1102]

157. OK you have a point

But many here often discredit things because the candidate or ticket cited didn't win.

If you want a fuller example that does back to 1912, go here: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=680032

But forgive me if I am being a bit defensive. I posted what is a factual observation and have been repeatedly attacked for it. Yet no one has been able to disprove my main point and are playing silly gotcha games. We are supposed to be the party that respects facts but some seem to have a problem with them.

[H2O Man]

226. I hear ya!

I generally do not engage in many angry discussions on DU:GD-P. Lots of petty nonsense. But I am interested in politics and history, and respect Malcolm X's saying that we should study the history of politics to understand current events. I talk to people -- outside of DU and the internet -- who have common interests.

Among the conversations we've had lately is who might Joe Biden pick for VP. A few of them think Elizabeth Warren would be best. In the past, geographic issues had a great influence on who might or might not be picked. That may hold true this year, as I suspect, or not be a factor, as they think.

At this point, I would think everyone should be focused on another issue that is starting to gell, with Trump calling himself a "war president," and Jared working with elite corporate leaders to plan for the future economic issues per the crisis. These two factors are what are the foundation for the Ike-era "continuity of government" plans, updated by Bush the Elder and Ollie North under Reagan, and actually instituted by Cheney on 9/11 (Robert Bydr; Losing America: Confronting a Reckless and Arrogant President; WW Norton & Co; 2004; page 79). This could allow Trump to "postpone" elections during a national crisis, if we are not prepared for mail-in ballots.

[Polybius]

53. Then say so in your OP

You said "Going back almost 70 years there only 3 cases of a nominee picking a former primary opponent as VP, Johnson in 60, Bush in 80 and Biden in 08."

By knowingly putting it like, it's misinformation and lies.

[Dem4Life1102]

56. Please

It’s a silly gotcha point. Irrelevant.

[Polybius]

274. It's an out an out lie

You said "Going back almost 70 years there only 3 cases of a nominee picking a former primary opponent as VP, Johnson in 60, Bush in 80 and Biden in 08."

That is 100% wrong.

[wyldwolf]

58. I agree. He's moving the goal posts from his original post.

[wyldwolf]

57. classic goal post moving.

[Dem4Life1102]

59. No

My OP contained indisputable facts that some didn't like so they resorted to a silly gotcha point that disproves nothing that I posted.

[wyldwolf]

61. Yes

Your OP set a 70 year time limit when we've had nominating contests since the late 1700s.

Later in the thread you moved the goal post so only winning tickets matter. LOL.

Based on the info already in this thread, I went back a bit further than 70 years.


2008 (D): Obama / Biden
2004 (D): John Kerry and John Edwards
1996 (R): Bob Dole and Jack Kemp
1980 (R): Ronald Reagan and Bush I
1968 (R): Nixon / Agnew
1960 (D): John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson
1956 (D): Adlai Stevenson and Estes Kefauver
1948 (R): Thomas Dewey and Earl Warren (Warren was a favorite-son candidate)
1944 (R): Thomas Dewey and John Bricker
1936 (R): Alf Landon and Frank Knox
1932 (D): Franklin Roosevelt and John Nance Garner
1928 (R): Herbert Hoover and Charles Curtis
1916 (R): Charles Evans Hughes and Charles Fairbanks
1912 (D): Woodrow Wilson and Thomas Marshall (Marshall was a favorite-son candidate)

1800s? Just didn't feel like doing the research.

Regardless, it happens quite a bit more than your op suggests.

[Dem4Life1102]

63. Please stop posting misinformation

There haven't been nominating contests since the late 1700s. There weren't even political parties back then.

So please stop playing your silly gotcha games. You're being argumentative just for the sake of it.

[wyldwolf]

66. Learn history

There haven't been nominating contests since the late 1700s. There weren't even political parties back then.

au contraire. Political parties formed in 1796. Every president was, at one point, nominated for that office. They weren't appointed. Basic American Civics.

Learn history.

[Dem4Life1102]

68. Still irrelevant to the OP

And the first nominating conventions weren't until 1832, not the late 1700s. Also, only white male landowners were allowed to vote then and African Americans were counted as 3/5s a person. All of which is irrelevant to the OP.

But thanks for proving my point that you're being argumentative just for the sake of it. You are invited to now post some actually facts that directly dispute my OP that Nominees typically don't pick a former primary opponent for their VP. (BTW they didn't start having primaries until 1916.)

[wyldwolf]

70. Only in that I didn't stick to your "70 year" limit. And your later arguments were false

Learn history.

[Dem4Life1102]

72. Thanks again for proving my point

Either post facts that directly disprove my OP or admit that you can't. Everything else is just a childish diversion to score silly debating points.

[wyldwolf]

73. Anyone reading knows you're point hasn't been proven.

You've shown an amazing lack of historical knowledge on primary races and nominating contests.

[Dem4Life1102]

75. Again

Prove me wrong. Please post all the examples of nominees choosing a former primary opponent as their VP.

[wyldwolf]

76. Again

Anyone reading knows you're point hasn't been proven. You've shown an amazing lack of historical knowledge on primary races and nominating contests.

[Dem4Life1102]

81. Then prove me wrong

[wyldwolf]

84. I already have. Everyone read:

You said picking a rival is the exception, not the rule. Yet, since 1912, it has happened 14 times. More often when count re-election campaigns. Then the number rises.. So it's happened less than it hasn't happened, but it certainly isn't the exception to the rule.

2012 (D): Obama / Biden (Biden was STILL Obama's primary rival)
2008 (D): Obama / Biden
2004 (D): John Kerry and John Edwards
1996 (R): Bob Dole and Jack Kemp
1984 (R): Ronald Reagan and Bush I (Bush was STILL Reagan's primary rival)
1980 (R): Ronald Reagan and Bush I
1972 (R): Nixon / Agnew (Agnew was STILL Nixon's primary running mate)
1968 (R): Nixon / Agnew
1960 (D): John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson
1956 (D): Adlai Stevenson and Estes Kefauver
1948 (R): Thomas Dewey and Earl Warren (Warren was a favorite-son candidate)
1944 (R): Thomas Dewey and John Bricker
1936 (R): Alf Landon and Frank Knox
1932 (D): Franklin Roosevelt and John Nance Garner (X3)
1928 (R): Herbert Hoover and Charles Curtis
1916 (R): Charles Evans Hughes and Charles Fairbanks
1912 (D): Woodrow Wilson and Thomas Marshall (Marshall was a favorite-son candidate)

[Dem4Life1102]

82. Then prove me wrong

and post all the examples of nominees choosing a former primary opponent as their VP. Otherwise you are just proving that you're being argumentative just for the sake of it.

But that's for kicking my OP. Much appreciated.

[wyldwolf]

85. I already have

Since 1912, it has happened 14 times. More often is we count re-election campaigns. Then the number rises. So it's happened less than it hasn't happened, but it certainly isn't the exception to the rule.

2012 (D): Obama / Biden (Biden was STILL Obama's primary rival)
2008 (D): Obama / Biden
2004 (D): John Kerry and John Edwards
1996 (R): Bob Dole and Jack Kemp
1984 (R): Ronald Reagan and Bush I (Bush was STILL Reagan's primary rival)
1980 (R): Ronald Reagan and Bush I
1972 (R): Nixon / Agnew (Agnew was STILL Nixon's primary running mate)
1968 (R): Nixon / Agnew
1960 (D): John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson
1956 (D): Adlai Stevenson and Estes Kefauver
1948 (R): Thomas Dewey and Earl Warren (Warren was a favorite-son candidate)
1944 (R): Thomas Dewey and John Bricker
1936 (R): Alf Landon and Frank Knox
1932 (D): Franklin Roosevelt and John Nance Garner (X3)
1928 (R): Herbert Hoover and Charles Curtis
1916 (R): Charles Evans Hughes and Charles Fairbanks
1912 (D): Woodrow Wilson and Thomas Marshall (Marshall was a favorite-son candidate)

[Dem4Life1102]

89. No you haven't

See post : https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=680032

And please don't try to move the goal posts.

[wyldwolf]

91. yes I have.

[Dem4Life1102]

93. 25% is less then 75%

Unless you're now denying reality.

[wyldwolf]

95. of course it is, but 25% isn't the exception to the rule

[Dem4Life1102]

97. OK

Now we are playing semantics games. Pathetic.

[wyldwolf]

100. How can quoting your post be "playing semantic games?"

Shouldn't we take the words of your post seriously?

[Dem4Life1102]

102. Please

75% is 3x more than 25%. If you want to continue to play semantics but I'll go with facts which I've posted and you've failed to dispute.

[wyldwolf]

103. "75% is 3x more than 25%" but it isn't "the exception to the rule."

"75% is 3x more than 25%" but it isn't "the exception to the rule."

[Dem4Life1102]

108. More semantics games

But thanks for the kick.

[wyldwolf]

110. You don't know the definition of "exception to the rule."

But thanks for the kick.

I'll gladly keep pointing out your folly.

[Dem4Life1102]

113. Thanks again

But still playing silly semantics games.

[wyldwolf]

117. quoting you isn't "semantic games."

[Dem4Life1102]

119. Yes it is

[wyldwolf]

126. No it isn't.

[Dem4Life1102]

129. Yes it is

And thanks for the kick!

[wyldwolf]

131. No it isn't. And happy to 'kick' for the entertainment of others.

[Dem4Life1102]

133. Great!

[wyldwolf]

134. It is great. And also entertaining.

[Dem4Life1102]

136. Good

Of course of you want to try to post some facts that is always welcome.

[wyldwolf]

141. It is good. Always good to disprove a goal post mover.

[Dem4Life1102]

143. I'm not the one moving goal posts here

Nor engaging in silly gotcha games.

You're free to post any facts that disprove that most nominees don't chose a former primary rival as their VP. Can you?

[wyldwolf]

145. Here are you goal post moves

you set a 70 year time frame.

You then said only winners counted.

You then claimed 25% of the time is "an exception to the rule."

You then claimed there were no political parties in the late 1700s.

You then claimed the first primary was in 1912.

[Dem4Life1102]

148. No I used a 70 year time frame

And everything else while factually correct is either a diversion to the main point or a silly gotcha game that you made an issue out of.

If you want to post any facts that disprove my OP and show that nominees have selected former primary opponents as their VP, you are free to do so.

[wyldwolf]

150. you've repeatedly denied you used a 70 year time frame.

Now you admit it? (not that we needed you to admit it. It's in the OP for all to see.)

[Dem4Life1102]

154. Yes I used a 70 year time frame

But never used that word limit or that anyone couldn't look back further than that.

[wyldwolf]

156. but you've repeatedly denied it.

[Dem4Life1102]

160. I never set a limit

That was your word not mine.

[wyldwolf]

162. you did in your OP

[Dem4Life1102]

167. Nope

Never set any limit.

Please feel free to go back and highlight where I used the word limit: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=678990

[wyldwolf]

172. yep

[Dem4Life1102]

174. Well?

Please show where I used the word limit in my OP.

[wyldwolf]

175. I've never said you used a word limit.

[Dem4Life1102]

182. Agreed I never used the word limit

[wyldwolf]

185. why are you referring to a 'word limit' then?

[Dem4Life1102]

192. Are you now denying that you accused me of setting a limit?

[wyldwolf]

193. I am denying I said you used a word limit, yes.

[Dem4Life1102]

209. Yes you did

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=680188

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=680192

[wyldwolf]

211. neither of your links say I said you set a 'word' limit

I've said you've used a year limit - 70 years.

[Dem4Life1102]

215. Stop playing dishonest games

Several time you accused me of setting a 70 year time limit in my OP. I never did and you know it.

[wyldwolf]

216. I'm not. Quoting you isn't being dishonest

Several time you accused me of setting a 70 year time limit in my OP.

I have and you did.

But where have I said you used word limits?

[Dem4Life1102]

218. So then quote me

Show in my OP where I set a 70 year time limit.

[wyldwolf]

220. I already have. Multiple times.

[Dem4Life1102]

223. No you haven't

My OP is here: https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287678990

Point out where I used the word limit.

[wyldwolf]

225. I haven't said you've used the word limit.

[Dem4Life1102]

227. Yes you have

Stop denying reality.

[wyldwolf]

229. Give me a direct quote by me saying you used a 'word limit.'

[Dem4Life1102]

232. Right here

Your OP set a 70 year time limit

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=679940

[wyldwolf]

233. Right. Your OP set a 70 year limit, not a word limit.

Frankly, no one cares how many words you've used.

[Dem4Life1102]

235. No it didn't

Again please point out where I set a time limit: https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287678990

[wyldwolf]

238. yes it does, and please point out where I said anything about a word limit.

[Dem4Life1102]

240. It doesn't

and stop trying to divert. Show exactly where I set a time limit.

[wyldwolf]

241. It does. And where have I mentioned any "word" limit?

[Dem4Life1102]

244. Please stop playing these games

Are you unable to engage in an honest discussion?

[wyldwolf]

246. Where have I said you set a word limit? Quote me.

[Dem4Life1102]

252. I never did

So stop the nonsense.

[wyldwolf]

254. you keep saying you didn't use a 'word' limit. No one has said you did.

[Dem4Life1102]

256. Please

Just stop playing these silly, childish games.

[wyldwolf]

257. Please

Show us where I've said you've used a 'word' limit.

[Dem4Life1102]

259. More games

[wyldwolf]

261. You call them 'games.' I call them your direct quotes.

[Dem4Life1102]

263. They are games

and you know it.

[wyldwolf]

265. directly quoting you isn't a game. It's fun, though.

[Dem4Life1102]

267. You're not directly quoting me

stop pretending that you are.

[wyldwolf]

269. yes I am.

[Dem4Life1102]

272. No you are not

You're just playing silly games and being argumentative for the sake of it.

[wyldwolf]

275. Directly quoting you isn't a silly game. It's fun, though.

[Dem4Life1102]

291. But you're not directly quoting me

Please stop pretending that you are.

[wyldwolf]

293. yes I am

[Dem4Life1102]

294. Nope you are not

[wyldwolf]

296. yep I am.

[Dem4Life1102]

300. No you're not.

And you've failed to disprove my main point that most nominees have not don't pick a former primary opponent as there VP. The real question is why some are so threatened by historical facts?

[wyldwolf]

301. Yes I am and yes I did.

[Dem4Life1102]

303. No you didn't.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=680032

[wyldwolf]

305. Yes I did

[Dem4Life1102]

309. OK

Then prove what I got wrong in that post. https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=680032

[wyldwolf]

312. ok

[Grown2Hate]

402. I probably just wasted 10 minutes of my life that I'll never get back, but I'm ALSO

cracking up. This was a classic Abbott and Costello routine, beginning to end. Thank you, guys!

"So I pick up the ball, and throw it to first... who catches it?" "Naturally!"

[catsudon]

22. well

that would mean Hillary Clinton is in play

[pinkstarburst]

23. This is not a normal year

This is not a normal year. The country is being ravaged by covid-19. Biden will be looking for a candidate who is extremely well qualified and will provide stability and confidence from the moment they are named.

Biden is 78 years old (not a normal candidate.)

And he will be choosing a female VP (which hasn't happened too many times.)

I would be very surprised if it wasn't one of the very talented 3 women who ran against him up until the end in the primaries and have already established a presence on the national stage. (Warren, Harris, Klobuchar)

[Dem4Life1102]

28. True he might

But I wouldn’t be surprised if he didn’t. All three come from solid blue states and don’t help flipping any swing states. Warren would help with progressives but won’t energize the African American vote. Harris would do that but her history as a prosecutor might not help with progressives.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

26. This isn't a normal election season. Anything could happen.

[Dem4Life1102]

38. That's what people said about a brokered convention too

and that’s not going to happen.

[zackymilly]

40. With Bernie still in the mix, anything is possible. n/t

[Dem4Life1102]

42. Yeah right

[tblue37]

27. Reagan picked Bush. nt

[tblue37]

29. Obama picked Biden. nt

[MrsCoffee]

30. I don't care what you advise, lol. I 100% expect it to be Harris.

Biden himself was a former primary opponent chosen as VP.

So yeah, whatever.

[Dem4Life1102]

31. And if it isn't?

[wishstar]

41. It's Harris because she is high profile on national stage, boosts AA turnout and is charismatic

Joe doesn't need a southerner, midwesterner or a more progressive VP than Harris. She has least negatives of any of the others I can think of.

[Dem4Life1102]

48. Can she help flip a swing state?

[nsd]

32. Kerry picked Edwards in 2004. (nt)

[wyldwolf]

33. took 32 replies to point that out. WOW. nt.

[Polybius]

45. I mentioned it in post 21

The op then said "Kerry lost" which makes zero sense. He never said only winners in his op.

[Dem4Life1102]

36. Kerry lost

[Polybius]

44. And?

Your op did not say only winners.

[Dem4Life1102]

46. And if I included losers

half the people here would discredit the argument because they were included.

[Polybius]

51. Well we have three winners and only one loser over the past 60 years or so

So listing Kerry actually helps your argument. Without him, they are 3-0 when picking a primary opponent. So Biden would be in great company.

[Dem4Life1102]

54. 3 out of 10

That’s the point.

[Polybius]

273. Wrong

4 people picked their running mate from a primary opponent. 3 of them won the election. So that's a 75% winning record in the GE.

You're helping the cause for picking a primary opponent, yet you are advising against it.

[Dem4Life1102]

278. Maybe/Maybe not

So the 7 who didn't pick a primary opponent as VP don't count?

And I'm not advising against anything. I'm just making an observation based on history.

[Polybius]

282. Sure

But you were mostly talking about those who did, like it was a bad thing. Their success rate is impressive (75%).

[Dem4Life1102]

289. Never said that it was a bad thing

Just pointing out some facts.

[Polybius]

403. Gotcha

Well, I do think there's a better chance of it happening this year but who knows. I thought Obama would have picked Hillary in 2008.

[wyldwolf]

34. FDR choose primary opponent John Nance Garner

[Dem4Life1102]

37. So?

Still doesn’t change that more times nominees don’t choose primary opponents.

[wyldwolf]

60. Goal post moving aside...

You may be right, but I don't think you're that sure of it. And I'm not sure why you chose 70 years as a benchmark when we've had nominating contests since the late 1700s. Usually people set a time period to bolster their argument.

Goal post moving aside, (for example, claiming losing tickets don't matter and only going back 70 years), there have many instances of it.

John Adams finished second only to George Washington in electoral votes. Adams became VP.
Similar situation with Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr.

Based on the info already in this thread, I went back a big further than 70 years.


2008 (D): Obama / Biden
2004 (D): John Kerry and John Edwards
1996 (R): Bob Dole and Jack Kemp
1980 (R): Ronald Reagan and Bush I
1968 (R): Nixon / Agnew
1960 (D): John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson
1956 (D): Adlai Stevenson and Estes Kefauver
1948 (R): Thomas Dewey and Earl Warren (Warren was a favorite-son candidate)
1944 (R): Thomas Dewey and John Bricker
1936 (R): Alf Landon and Frank Knox
1932 (D): Franklin Roosevelt and John Nance Garner
1928 (R): Herbert Hoover and Charles Curtis
1916 (R): Charles Evans Hughes and Charles Fairbanks
1912 (D): Woodrow Wilson and Thomas Marshall (Marshall was a favorite-son candidate)

1800s? Just didn't feel like doing the research.

Regardless, it happens quite a bit more than your op suggests.

[Dem4Life1102]

62. No moving any goal posts

My op contained indisputable facts. And the time period just another silly gotcha point because there are no facts that dispute my point, that Nominees usually don't pick a former opponent as there running mate. It is more the exception than the norm.

Unless you can post any facts that prove that wrong? If not you're just being argumentative for the sake of it.

[wyldwolf]

64. Perhaps you don't know the definition of 'goal post moving.'

Goal post moving is changing the terms of the argument after the argument is underway.

The biggest example in your exchanges here is saying losing tickets don't matter. That aside, setting a 70 year time limit was an attempt to bolster your argument.

[Dem4Life1102]

65. Time frame is irrelevant

Just another silly gotcha point because there are no facts that dispute the OP.

[wyldwolf]

67. then why set it? And why later claim losing tickets don't count? Let's review:

John Adams finished second only to George Washington in electoral votes. Adams became VP.
Similar situation with Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr.

Based on the info already in this thread, I went back a big further than 70 years.


2008 (D): Obama / Biden
2004 (D): John Kerry and John Edwards
1996 (R): Bob Dole and Jack Kemp
1980 (R): Ronald Reagan and Bush I
1968 (R): Nixon / Agnew
1960 (D): John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson
1956 (D): Adlai Stevenson and Estes Kefauver
1948 (R): Thomas Dewey and Earl Warren (Warren was a favorite-son candidate)
1944 (R): Thomas Dewey and John Bricker
1936 (R): Alf Landon and Frank Knox
1932 (D): Franklin Roosevelt and John Nance Garner
1928 (R): Herbert Hoover and Charles Curtis
1916 (R): Charles Evans Hughes and Charles Fairbanks
1912 (D): Woodrow Wilson and Thomas Marshall (Marshall was a favorite-son candidate)

1800s? Just didn't feel like doing the research.

You later said "there haven't been nominating contests since the late 1700s. There weren't even political parties back then." That's false.

Political parties formed in 1796. Every president was, at one point, nominated for that office. They weren't appointed. Basic American Civics.

Learn history.

[Dem4Life1102]

69. Thanks for proving my point!

You're being argumentative just for the sake of it since you don't have any real facts that disprove my OP.

[wyldwolf]

71. Anyone reading knows you're point hasn't been proven.

You've shown an amazing lack of historical knowledge on primary races and nominating contests.

[Dem4Life1102]

74. OK then post actual facts that disprove it

So far you haven't. Show me the overwhelming number of times that a nominee has chosen a former primary opponent as VP. Please go right ahead.

[TwilightZone]

77. Your OP is clearly false.

Why you've chosen to double-down on that is curious.

[Dem4Life1102]

79. OK Then prove it false

My OP states that nominees typically don't pick a former primary opponent as their VP. Please post all the number of times that a nominee has done so that prove me wrong.

[wyldwolf]

83. It also said nominees picking a rival is "the exception, not the rule."

Yet, since 1912, it has happened 14 times. More often when count re-election campaigns. Then the number rises to 20 times. So it's happened less than it hasn't happened, but it certainly isn't the exception to the rule.

2012 (D): Obama / Biden (Biden was STILL Obama's primary rival)
2008 (D): Obama / Biden
2004 (D): John Kerry and John Edwards
1996 (R): Bob Dole and Jack Kemp
1984 (R): Ronald Reagan and Bush I (Bush was STILL Reagan's primary rival)
1980 (R): Ronald Reagan and Bush I
1972 (R): Nixon / Agnew (Agnew was STILL Nixon's primary running mate)
1968 (R): Nixon / Agnew
1960 (D): John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson
1956 (D): Adlai Stevenson and Estes Kefauver
1948 (R): Thomas Dewey and Earl Warren (Warren was a favorite-son candidate)
1944 (R): Thomas Dewey and John Bricker
1936 (R): Alf Landon and Frank Knox
1932 (D): Franklin Roosevelt and John Nance Garner (X3)
1928 (R): Herbert Hoover and Charles Curtis
1916 (R): Charles Evans Hughes and Charles Fairbanks
1912 (D): Woodrow Wilson and Thomas Marshall (Marshall was a favorite-son candidate)

[Dem4Life1102]

88. OK

2012 (D): Obama / Biden (Biden was STILL Obama's primary rival)

Biden didn't run in any primaries in 12 and their GOP opponent Romey chose Ryan who didn't run in any primaries

2008 (D): Obama / Biden

True but McCain choose Palin who didn't run in any primaries.

2004 (D): John Kerry and John Edwards

OK but you leave out 2000. Neither Lieberman or Cheney ran in the primaries that year.

1996 (R): Bob Dole and Jack Kemp

OK but again you leave out both 1992 and 1988. Gore didn't run in 92 and neither Bentsen or Qualye ran in 88

1984 (R): Ronald Reagan and Bush I (Bush was STILL Reagan's primary rival)

There were no GOP primaries that year and Ferraro did run in the Dem primaries.

1980 (R): Ronald Reagan and Bush I

Yes but you omitted 76. Neither Mondale or Dole ran in the primaries.

1972 (R): Nixon / Agnew (Agnew was STILL Nixon's primary running mate)

True and neither of McGovern's running mates ran in the primaries.

1968 (R): Nixon / Agnew

Agnew didn't run in any primaries and neither did Muskie.

And in 1964 Goldwater's running mate William Miller didn't run in any primaries. And Johnson was opposed by George Wallace in the Dem primaries not by Humphrey.

1960 (D): John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson

Actually Johnson didn't run in any primaries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries#Candidates) but made a play for the nomination at the convention and Nixon's running mate Henry Cabot Lodge didn't run in primaries either.

1956 (D): Adlai Stevenson and Estes Kefauver

OK but in 1952 Stevenson nor his running mate John Sparkman ran in any primaries. They were choosen at the convention. And Nixon didn't run in any primaries either.

1948 (R): Thomas Dewey and Earl Warren (Warren was a favorite-son candidate)

Yes and Truman's primary opponent was William Julian not his running mate Alben Barkley.

1944 (R): Thomas Dewey and John Bricker

OK and FDR's primary opponents were Joseph Ferguson and Harry Byrd not his VP Truman.

In 1940 neither FDR or Wendell Willkie picked a primary opponent at VP.

1936 (R): Alf Landon and Frank Knox

Yes and FDR's primary opponent Henry Breckinridge wasn't his running mate.

1932 (D): Franklin Roosevelt and John Nance Garner (X3)

Yes and Hoover had 4 primary opponents that year, none of whom were his running mate.

1928 (R): Herbert Hoover and Charles Curtis

Curtis didn't run in any GOP primary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1928_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries) nor did Smith's VP Joe Robinson.

And since you skipped 1924, neither Coolidge's or Davis' running mates ran in any primaries, in fact neither Davis he was chosen at the convention. In 1920 Cox chose FDR as his running mate, who didn't run in a primary that year. And Harding chose Coolidge who also didn't run in a primary that year.

1916 (R): Charles Evans Hughes and Charles Fairbanks

True

1912 (D): Woodrow Wilson and Thomas Marshall (Marshall was a favorite-son candidate)

Marshall didn't run in any primary in 1912 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1912_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries) neither did Taft's running mate Butler.

Since there were no primaries before 1912 there is no point to go on. But let's not forget our latest election in 2016 where neither VP candidate Pence or Kaine ran in their parties primaries.

So in the 27 presidential elections since the beginning of the primary system, with a total of 52 Republican or Democratic nominees, there were a total of 13 times that a nominee choose a former primary opponent as their running mate. 13 is 25% of the time. So 75% of the time they didn't. Now what would you call the norm 75% or 25%? I think my point has been proved. Thanks.

[wyldwolf]

90. you're spending a lot of time on something you're so clearly wrong about.

[Dem4Life1102]

92. Then prove me wrong

You are free to dispute anything that I posted. But as my previous post proved nominees have only picked primary opponents as their VP 25% of the time.

[wyldwolf]

94. I already have, your goal post moving aside

And everyone reading your thread agrees.

[Dem4Life1102]

99. I haven't moved any goal posts

But you seem to.

And all you've proved it that you're being argumentative for the sake of it.

[wyldwolf]

101. you've done it constantly

Why did you say losing ticket didn't count?

Why are trying to redefine what "exception to the rule" means?

Why limit your claim to 70 years?

[Dem4Life1102]

104. Please

Those were all silly gotcha points made by other people. I've shown with facts that only 25% of the time nominees chose a former primary opponent as VP. Dispute me with facts and stop playing games.

[wyldwolf]

105. 25% of the time isn't the "exception to the rule."

[Dem4Life1102]

107. Still playing silly semantics games

Pathetic.

[wyldwolf]

111. quoting you isn't "semantic games."

[Dem4Life1102]

114. Please

I've proven that nominees have only chosen a former primary rival 25% of the time. You can try to disprove that with real facts or continue to play silly gotcha and semantics games.

[wyldwolf]

115. Please. 25% of the time isn't, to quote you "the exception to the rule."

[Dem4Life1102]

121. More semantics games

Since you can't disprove any facts.

[wyldwolf]

122. quoting you isn't "semantic games."

[Dem4Life1102]

124. Yes it is

especially since I've proven my point with real facts.

[wyldwolf]

127. No it isn't.

[Polybius]

404. Great points, although Jack Kemp was not a primary rival in 1996

He only ran for President in 1988.

[wyldwolf]

78. I already have, your goal post moving aside

Picking rivals for Veep was pretty common until the 12th amendment. And the practice continued off and on since.

2008 (D): Obama / Biden
2004 (D): John Kerry and John Edwards
1996 (R): Bob Dole and Jack Kemp
1980 (R): Ronald Reagan and Bush I
1968 (R): Nixon / Agnew
1960 (D): John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson
1956 (D): Adlai Stevenson and Estes Kefauver
1948 (R): Thomas Dewey and Earl Warren (Warren was a favorite-son candidate)
1944 (R): Thomas Dewey and John Bricker
1936 (R): Alf Landon and Frank Knox
1932 (D): Franklin Roosevelt and John Nance Garner
1928 (R): Herbert Hoover and Charles Curtis
1916 (R): Charles Evans Hughes and Charles Fairbanks
1912 (D): Woodrow Wilson and Thomas Marshall (Marshall was a favorite-son candidate)

1800s? Just didn't feel like doing the research.

You later moved the goal post to say losing tickets don't count.

And you later said political parties didn't exist in the late 1700s. EVERY president has been nominated for the office.

Your grasp of history is an epic fail.

[Dem4Life1102]

80. Nice

And in every case cited above their opponent didn't choose a primary opponent. So for the 14 examples you provided there are 14 examples were they didn't. And only about half of them actually won.

You can't go back further because they didn't have primaries before 1912 so the 1800s can't be used as an example. Nor can the 1700s because they didn't have conventions until 1831.

[wyldwolf]

86. You're goal post moving again.

Actually winning wasn't the premise of your OP.

And the times I listed disprove one of the premises of your OP. It happens frequently enough not to be any exception to the rule.

A woman Veep pick would be an exception to the rule. A rival isn't.

[Dem4Life1102]

96. That's a silly gotcha point

And I never said it never happens just that it happens less than the nominee choosing someone other than a former primary opponent. All you showed was 14 examples out of 27 elections and 52 nominees, and some of your examples weren't true.

You've disproved nothing.

[wyldwolf]

98. It's a fact.

Goal post moving aside, you're 'exception to the rule' is a joke, your "70 year limit" is designed to buttress your point, saying losing tickets don't count is ridiculous, and claiming political parties didn't exist in the late 1700s makes you look like amateur.

[Dem4Life1102]

106. No it's not

I never moved any goal posts and I never set a 70 year limit. Since primaries began in 1912 nominees have only chosen a primary rival as VP 25% of the time. Your free to disprove that with facts if you can but stop the silly games and the name calling.

[wyldwolf]

109. yes it is, you're goal post moving aside

I never set a 70 year limit.

Your OP said "Going back almost 70 years there only 3 cases of a nominee picking a former primary opponent as VP."

Since primaries began in 1912

Primaries didn't begin in 1912. Learn history.

nominees have only chosen a primary rival as VP 25% of the time.

25% of the time isn't an "exception to the rule."

[Dem4Life1102]

112. And where did I use the word limit?

Did I ever say that example from earlier that 70 years couldn't be used? That is not setting a limit.

And Presidential Primaries didn't begin until 1912. That is history.

The rest is just semantics games and you're just being argumentative for the sake of it.

[wyldwolf]

120. "word limit?" Who's mentioned "word limit."

Your op attempted, quite poorly, to make the case that nominees seldom pick rivals. Clear false. You used 70 years as a benchmark.

YOU said primaries began in in 1912, not I.

Quoting you isn't semantics.

[Dem4Life1102]

123. No as an example

And primaries did begin in 1912. And I've proven that nominees only have pick former primary rivals only 25% of the time.

You've proven that you're being argumentative just for the sake of it.

[wyldwolf]

125. Show me a link that says "primaries began in 1912." LOL

25% of the time isn't an "exception to the rule."

[Dem4Life1102]

128. Here you go

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_primary#History

Can you post a link that disproves this?

[wyldwolf]

130. I'll quote your link

"Florida enacted the first presidential primary in 1901. The Wisconsin direct open primary of 1905 was the first to eliminate the caucus and mandate direct selection of national convention delegates. In 1910, Oregon became the first state to establish a presidential preference primary."

Next?

[Dem4Life1102]

135. In 1910, Oregon became the first state to establish a presidential preference primary

And what was the next presidential election?

[wyldwolf]

140. sure, but that wasn't 1912. Nor was Florida's in 1901

[Dem4Life1102]

146. There was no Presidential election in 1910 or 1901

Here are the pages for the parties presidential primaries in 1912. You can click to go to the next election all the way up to the present day. But you can't go back any further than 1912.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1912_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1912_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries

Can you show that there were primaries in 1908 or 1904 or 1900? And did all the nominees in those years choose primary rivals at their VPs?

[wyldwolf]

147. So? There were primaries. Is your link lying?

When you link said, "Florida enacted the first presidential primary in 1901. The Wisconsin direct open primary of 1905 was the first to eliminate the caucus and mandate direct selection of national convention delegates. In 1910, Oregon became the first state to establish a presidential preference primary.." was it lying?

[Dem4Life1102]

153. OK then please post evidence of Presidential primaries prior to 1912

as well as links that show the nominees of the 2 parties chose a primary opponent as their VP.

[wyldwolf]

155. I did, using YOUR link. The link YOU gave. Should I quote again?

Florida enacted the first presidential primary in 1901.

[Dem4Life1102]

159. Enacted?

When was it held? Who ran in it? Who won?

And again here are the links again on the 1912 primaries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1912_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1912_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries

You can't go back any further.

So please show that there were primaries before 1912 and that the nominees chose their primary rival as VP. That is the main point. Can you dispute it or not?

[wyldwolf]

163. So your link is lying?

[Dem4Life1102]

165. Never said it was

And if you are claiming that there were primaries held before 1912 please post links that prove that they were.

[wyldwolf]

166. you're disputing your own link

[Dem4Life1102]

168. Not at all

But enacted doesn't mean one was held. If you have proof that primaries were held before 1912 please post links to prove your assertion.

[wyldwolf]

170. yes you are

[Dem4Life1102]

173. Nope

Enacted and held are two different things.

[wyldwolf]

176. You've lost faith in your link

[Dem4Life1102]

181. Not at all

Things are enacted all the time but it doesn't mean they take effect immediately. The ACA was enacted in 2010 but several parts didn't go into effect for years.

Please show evidence that primaries were held prior to 1912 and that the nominee pick their primary rival as their VP.

[wyldwolf]

183. apparently so.

[Dem4Life1102]

189. Nope

[wyldwolf]

191. yep

[Dem4Life1102]

196. No

[wyldwolf]

198. yes

[Dem4Life1102]

203. No

[wyldwolf]

205. Yes

[Dem4Life1102]

206. No

So can you prove that presidential primaries were held prior to 1912 or not?

[wyldwolf]

208. It was your link, not mine.

[Dem4Life1102]

210. And the link never says that primaries were held prior to 1912

[wyldwolf]

212. yes it does.

[Dem4Life1102]

213. Show where it does

[wyldwolf]

214. I already have. Multiple times.

[Dem4Life1102]

217. No you haven't

The link says that Florida enacted a primary in 1901 but not that one was held in the next presidential election.

Once again, please show that presidential primaries were held prior to 1912.

[wyldwolf]

219. yes I have.

[Dem4Life1102]

221. No you haven't

Please post a link that proves that Presidential primaries were held prior to 1912.

[wyldwolf]

222. yes I have

[Dem4Life1102]

224. Claim that you have over and over

Doesn't make it true. Either post a link that proves your assertion or admit that you can't.

[wyldwolf]

228. Claim that i haven't over and over

Doesn't make it true.

[Dem4Life1102]

230. No the links make it true

which you repeatedly refuse to provide.

[wyldwolf]

231. Exactly. Your link makes what I said true.

[Dem4Life1102]

234. No it doesn't

The link never states that primaries were held prior to 1912.

[wyldwolf]

236. Yes it does.

[Dem4Life1102]

237. OK then point out where it does

[wyldwolf]

239. I already have. Multiple times.

[Dem4Life1102]

242. No you haven't

So please stop claiming that you have.

[wyldwolf]

243. yes I have multiple times.

[Dem4Life1102]

245. Where?

[wyldwolf]

248. Your link.

[Dem4Life1102]

249. Link doesn't say that

Show where it does.

[wyldwolf]

251. yes it does.

[Dem4Life1102]

253. It doesn't

and you know it or you'd be quoting where it does.

[wyldwolf]

255. It does. And I've quoted it several times.

[Dem4Life1102]

258. And it never says any primaries were held prior to 1912

[wyldwolf]

260. yes it does.

[Dem4Life1102]

262. No it doesn't

Show where it does. And don't say that you have because you haven't.

[wyldwolf]

264. yes it is.

[Dem4Life1102]

266. Nope

never does.

[wyldwolf]

268. yep

[Dem4Life1102]

270. Then show where it does

Please I'm waiting.

[wyldwolf]

271. I already have. Multiple times.

[Dem4Life1102]

279. Then show me again

if you can.

[wyldwolf]

280. No, I already have multiple times.

Doing it again would only lead to you asking for it yet again and again.

[Dem4Life1102]

288. No you haven't

Stop claiming that you did.

[wyldwolf]

298. yes I have

Stop claiming I haven't.

[Dem4Life1102]

315. Weak comeback nt

[wyldwolf]

317. yet stronger than all of yours.

[Dem4Life1102]

322. Truth is strength

It is only the dishonest who cannot see that.

[wyldwolf]

323. which is why all your non-points have been weak.

[Dem4Life1102]

331. I've only made one point

That most nominees don't pick a former primary opponent as their VP. Just an observation of history. It is a shame some are so threatened by the truth.

[wyldwolf]

332. one initial point, then constant goal posts moves to bolster it.

[Dem4Life1102]

341. No you're the one moving goal post

because you can't disprove my point.

[wyldwolf]

343. You started goal post moving the moment you said losing tickets didn't count.

[Dem4Life1102]

357. I don't think they are relevant

not moving any goal posts but if someone wants to look at losing tickets too they are welcome to. And as shown here https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=680032 doesn't change my observation.

[wyldwolf]

358. which only weakens your point

[Dem4Life1102]

381. Not a point but an observation

and as I already have said, anyone is free to look at the losing tickets.

[wyldwolf]

383. A point

[Dem4Life1102]

386. Call it what you like if it makes you happy

Either way my observation is accurate.

[wyldwolf]

387. Thanks! Most would agree

[Dem4Life1102]

390. I would hope they agree with facts

[wyldwolf]

391. Give some and we'll see.

[Dem4Life1102]

393. OK

2012 (D): Obama / Biden (Biden was STILL Obama's primary rival)

Biden didn't run in any primaries in 12 and their GOP opponent Romey chose Ryan who didn't run in any primaries

2008 (D): Obama / Biden

True but McCain choose Palin who didn't run in any primaries.

2004 (D): John Kerry and John Edwards

OK but you leave out 2000. Neither Lieberman or Cheney ran in the primaries that year.

1996 (R): Bob Dole and Jack Kemp

OK but again you leave out both 1992 and 1988. Gore didn't run in 92 and neither Bentsen or Qualye ran in 88

1984 (R): Ronald Reagan and Bush I (Bush was STILL Reagan's primary rival)

There were no GOP primaries that year and Ferraro did run in the Dem primaries.

1980 (R): Ronald Reagan and Bush I

Yes but you omitted 76. Neither Mondale or Dole ran in the primaries.

1972 (R): Nixon / Agnew (Agnew was STILL Nixon's primary running mate)

True and neither of McGovern's running mates ran in the primaries.

1968 (R): Nixon / Agnew

Agnew didn't run in any primaries and neither did Muskie.

And in 1964 Goldwater's running mate William Miller didn't run in any primaries. And Johnson was opposed by George Wallace in the Dem primaries not by Humphrey.

1960 (D): John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson

Actually Johnson didn't run in any primaries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries#Candidates) but made a play for the nomination at the convention and Nixon's running mate Henry Cabot Lodge didn't run in primaries either.

1956 (D): Adlai Stevenson and Estes Kefauver

OK but in 1952 Stevenson nor his running mate John Sparkman ran in any primaries. They were choosen at the convention. And Nixon didn't run in any primaries either.

1948 (R): Thomas Dewey and Earl Warren (Warren was a favorite-son candidate)

Yes and Truman's primary opponent was William Julian not his running mate Alben Barkley.

1944 (R): Thomas Dewey and John Bricker

OK and FDR's primary opponents were Joseph Ferguson and Harry Byrd not his VP Truman.

In 1940 neither FDR or Wendell Willkie picked a primary opponent at VP.

1936 (R): Alf Landon and Frank Knox

Yes and FDR's primary opponent Henry Breckinridge wasn't his running mate.

1932 (D): Franklin Roosevelt and John Nance Garner (X3)

Yes and Hoover had 4 primary opponents that year, none of whom were his running mate.

1928 (R): Herbert Hoover and Charles Curtis

Curtis didn't run in any GOP primary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1928_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries) nor did Smith's VP Joe Robinson.

And since you skipped 1924, neither Coolidge's or Davis' running mates ran in any primaries, in fact neither Davis he was chosen at the convention. In 1920 Cox chose FDR as his running mate, who didn't run in a primary that year. And Harding chose Coolidge who also didn't run in a primary that year.

1916 (R): Charles Evans Hughes and Charles Fairbanks

True

1912 (D): Woodrow Wilson and Thomas Marshall (Marshall was a favorite-son candidate)

Marshall didn't run in any primary in 1912 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1912_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries) neither did Taft's running mate Butler.

Since there were no primaries before 1912 there is no point to go on. But let's not forget our latest election in 2016 where neither VP candidate Pence or Kaine ran in their parties primaries.

So in the 27 presidential elections since the beginning of the primary system, with a total of 52 Republican or Democratic nominees, there were a total of 13 times that a nominee choose a former primary opponent as their running mate. 13 is 25% of the time. So 75% of the time they didn't. Now what would you call the norm 75% or 25%? I think my point has been proved. Thanks.

[wyldwolf]

396. You're still dodging the ridiculous claim

Losers don’t count.

[Dem4Life1102]

397. This post counts winners and losers

Please show where I am in error:

2012 (D): Obama / Biden (Biden was STILL Obama's primary rival)

Biden didn't run in any primaries in 12 and their GOP opponent Romey chose Ryan who didn't run in any primaries

2008 (D): Obama / Biden

True but McCain choose Palin who didn't run in any primaries.

2004 (D): John Kerry and John Edwards

OK but you leave out 2000. Neither Lieberman or Cheney ran in the primaries that year.

1996 (R): Bob Dole and Jack Kemp

OK but again you leave out both 1992 and 1988. Gore didn't run in 92 and neither Bentsen or Qualye ran in 88

1984 (R): Ronald Reagan and Bush I (Bush was STILL Reagan's primary rival)

There were no GOP primaries that year and Ferraro did run in the Dem primaries.

1980 (R): Ronald Reagan and Bush I

Yes but you omitted 76. Neither Mondale or Dole ran in the primaries.

1972 (R): Nixon / Agnew (Agnew was STILL Nixon's primary running mate)

True and neither of McGovern's running mates ran in the primaries.

1968 (R): Nixon / Agnew

Agnew didn't run in any primaries and neither did Muskie.

And in 1964 Goldwater's running mate William Miller didn't run in any primaries. And Johnson was opposed by George Wallace in the Dem primaries not by Humphrey.

1960 (D): John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson

Actually Johnson didn't run in any primaries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries#Candidates) but made a play for the nomination at the convention and Nixon's running mate Henry Cabot Lodge didn't run in primaries either.

1956 (D): Adlai Stevenson and Estes Kefauver

OK but in 1952 Stevenson nor his running mate John Sparkman ran in any primaries. They were choosen at the convention. And Nixon didn't run in any primaries either.

1948 (R): Thomas Dewey and Earl Warren (Warren was a favorite-son candidate)

Yes and Truman's primary opponent was William Julian not his running mate Alben Barkley.

1944 (R): Thomas Dewey and John Bricker

OK and FDR's primary opponents were Joseph Ferguson and Harry Byrd not his VP Truman.

In 1940 neither FDR or Wendell Willkie picked a primary opponent at VP.

1936 (R): Alf Landon and Frank Knox

Yes and FDR's primary opponent Henry Breckinridge wasn't his running mate.

1932 (D): Franklin Roosevelt and John Nance Garner (X3)

Yes and Hoover had 4 primary opponents that year, none of whom were his running mate.

1928 (R): Herbert Hoover and Charles Curtis

Curtis didn't run in any GOP primary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1928_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries) nor did Smith's VP Joe Robinson.

And since you skipped 1924, neither Coolidge's or Davis' running mates ran in any primaries, in fact neither Davis he was chosen at the convention. In 1920 Cox chose FDR as his running mate, who didn't run in a primary that year. And Harding chose Coolidge who also didn't run in a primary that year.

1916 (R): Charles Evans Hughes and Charles Fairbanks

True

1912 (D): Woodrow Wilson and Thomas Marshall (Marshall was a favorite-son candidate)

Marshall didn't run in any primary in 1912 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1912_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries) neither did Taft's running mate Butler.

Since there were no primaries before 1912 there is no point to go on. But let's not forget our latest election in 2016 where neither VP candidate Pence or Kaine ran in their parties primaries.

So in the 27 presidential elections since the beginning of the primary system, with a total of 52 Republican or Democratic nominees, there were a total of 13 times that a nominee choose a former primary opponent as their running mate. 13 is 25% of the time. So 75% of the time they didn't. Now what would you call the norm 75% or 25%? I think my point has been proved. Thanks.

[wyldwolf]

399. Your op doesn't.

[Dem4Life1102]

401. But where is it factually wrong.

Please point them out.

2012 (D): Obama / Biden (Biden was STILL Obama's primary rival)

Biden didn't run in any primaries in 12 and their GOP opponent Romey chose Ryan who didn't run in any primaries

2008 (D): Obama / Biden

True but McCain choose Palin who didn't run in any primaries.

2004 (D): John Kerry and John Edwards

OK but you leave out 2000. Neither Lieberman or Cheney ran in the primaries that year.

1996 (R): Bob Dole and Jack Kemp

OK but again you leave out both 1992 and 1988. Gore didn't run in 92 and neither Bentsen or Qualye ran in 88

1984 (R): Ronald Reagan and Bush I (Bush was STILL Reagan's primary rival)

There were no GOP primaries that year and Ferraro did run in the Dem primaries.

1980 (R): Ronald Reagan and Bush I

Yes but you omitted 76. Neither Mondale or Dole ran in the primaries.

1972 (R): Nixon / Agnew (Agnew was STILL Nixon's primary running mate)

True and neither of McGovern's running mates ran in the primaries.

1968 (R): Nixon / Agnew

Agnew didn't run in any primaries and neither did Muskie.

And in 1964 Goldwater's running mate William Miller didn't run in any primaries. And Johnson was opposed by George Wallace in the Dem primaries not by Humphrey.

1960 (D): John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson

Actually Johnson didn't run in any primaries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries#Candidates) but made a play for the nomination at the convention and Nixon's running mate Henry Cabot Lodge didn't run in primaries either.

1956 (D): Adlai Stevenson and Estes Kefauver

OK but in 1952 Stevenson nor his running mate John Sparkman ran in any primaries. They were choosen at the convention. And Nixon didn't run in any primaries either.

1948 (R): Thomas Dewey and Earl Warren (Warren was a favorite-son candidate)

Yes and Truman's primary opponent was William Julian not his running mate Alben Barkley.

1944 (R): Thomas Dewey and John Bricker

OK and FDR's primary opponents were Joseph Ferguson and Harry Byrd not his VP Truman.

In 1940 neither FDR or Wendell Willkie picked a primary opponent at VP.

1936 (R): Alf Landon and Frank Knox

Yes and FDR's primary opponent Henry Breckinridge wasn't his running mate.

1932 (D): Franklin Roosevelt and John Nance Garner (X3)

Yes and Hoover had 4 primary opponents that year, none of whom were his running mate.

1928 (R): Herbert Hoover and Charles Curtis

Curtis didn't run in any GOP primary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1928_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries) nor did Smith's VP Joe Robinson.

And since you skipped 1924, neither Coolidge's or Davis' running mates ran in any primaries, in fact neither Davis he was chosen at the convention. In 1920 Cox chose FDR as his running mate, who didn't run in a primary that year. And Harding chose Coolidge who also didn't run in a primary that year.

1916 (R): Charles Evans Hughes and Charles Fairbanks

True

1912 (D): Woodrow Wilson and Thomas Marshall (Marshall was a favorite-son candidate)

Marshall didn't run in any primary in 1912 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1912_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries) neither did Taft's running mate Butler.

Since there were no primaries before 1912 there is no point to go on. But let's not forget our latest election in 2016 where neither VP candidate Pence or Kaine ran in their parties primaries.

So in the 27 presidential elections since the beginning of the primary system, with a total of 52 Republican or Democratic nominees, there were a total of 13 times that a nominee choose a former primary opponent as their running mate. 13 is 25% of the time. So 75% of the time they didn't. Now what would you call the norm 75% or 25%? I think my point has been proved. Thanks.

[Dream Girl]

118. Save your breath, their argument is specious and kind of silly

Like saying “every black candidate in the past 20 years who chose a white running running mate won the presidency”. They’re making up shit and their argument is pointless.

[Dem4Life1102]

132. You're free to disprove my premise

Can you show that Presidential nominees have chosen a primary rival more than not?

[wyldwolf]

138. That was't your premise

Can you show that Presidential nominees have chosen a primary rival more than not?

That wasn't your premise. Before your goal post moving, your premise was "Most Nominees don't pick a former primary opponent as VP." But you set a 70 year time frame.

You then said only winners counted.

You then claimed 25% of the time is "an exception to the rule."

You then claimed there were no political parties in the late 1700s.

You then claimed the first primary was in 1912.

[Dem4Life1102]

142. Yes it was

it was the title of my OP. And I never set any time limit. Everything else (while factually correct) is a diversion from the main point.

[wyldwolf]

144. it wasn't the title of your OP

The title of you OP is "Most Nominees don't pick a former primary opponent as VP." It isn't "Presidential nominees have chosen a primary rival more than not."

Your OP stated a 70 year window to make your non-point.

[Dem4Life1102]

151. Yes "Most Nominees don't pick a former primary opponent as VP."

Since 75% is 3x as big as 25% the word most applies.

And I used a 70 year time frame but never once said that anyone couldn't look further back.

[wyldwolf]

152. But you just said it WASN'T the title of your OP.

25% isn't the exception to the rule.

[Dem4Life1102]

158. Yes that is the title of my OP

Go back and look: https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287678990

[wyldwolf]

161. In post #142 you said the title was something else.

ah, yes.

[Dem4Life1102]

164. No I didn't

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=680141

[wyldwolf]

169. yes you did.

Post 132, you said: Can you show that Presidential nominees have chosen a primary rival more than not?

I replied, "That was't your premise."

Post 142, you said: Yes it was it was the title of my OP.

So what was the title of your OP? "Presidential nominees have chosen a primary rival more than not?"

[Dem4Life1102]

171. No that is dishonest

You posted

your premise was "Most Nominees don't pick a former primary opponent as VP."

And that is what I was agreeing to.

So can you prove my premise wrong or not?

[wyldwolf]

177. quoting you is dishonest?

[Dem4Life1102]

178. Yes when you selectively edit it

to play some silly gotcha game.

[wyldwolf]

180. A quote isn't an edit. I directly quoted you.

[Dem4Life1102]

186. You edited it

Please don't deny it.

[wyldwolf]

190. where?

[Dem4Life1102]

195. Here

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=680210

And here is the original post: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=680134

[wyldwolf]

197. No edits there.

[Dem4Life1102]

201. Please

[wyldwolf]

204. Please

[treestar]

137. Each election is unique

Always under different circumstances. As we've seen, that you have to win Iowa to win the nomination is broken.

[Dem4Life1102]

139. Very true

Things change over time. While Biden might chose a former primary rival it is not a lock as many seem to think it is. I was just pointing that out.

[Squinch]

179. Man. This thread started dumb and just got dumber.

[Dem4Life1102]

184. You're telling me!

[Squinch]

187. I lulzed.

[wyldwolf]

194. He called your OP dumb, and you agreed, LOL.

[Dem4Life1102]

200. He called the thread dumb

and he's right.

[wyldwolf]

207. the OP started the thread, and is the dumbest part

[Dem4Life1102]

281. Just a simple observation of history

What is dumb it that some are so threatened by it.

[wyldwolf]

283. tainted by your goal post moving and caveats to lend more credence to a flawed premise.

[Dem4Life1102]

290. What is flawed?

Just pointing out some historical facts. No need to be so threatened by it.

[wyldwolf]

295. So a candidate who picks a primary rival but loses didn't really pick a primary rival?

By losing, he changed the past and never actually picked a primary rival?

[Dem4Life1102]

297. Never claimed that

Please don't pretend that I did.

[wyldwolf]

299. yes you did.

[Dem4Life1102]

302. Here we go again

I don't mind a spirited debate if it is based on facts. But childish gotcha games are tiresome.

[wyldwolf]

304. Here we go again

I don't mind a spirited debate if it is based on facts. But when you deny the things you've said, it gets entertaining.

[Dem4Life1102]

307. Not denying anything

But I refuse to let words be dishonestly put in my mouth.

[wyldwolf]

310. Sure you are.

[Dem4Life1102]

313. Nope

[wyldwolf]

316. yep

[Dem4Life1102]

319. Nope

And thanks for the kick!

[wyldwolf]

321. yep! And you're welcome for the kick. Happy to do it.

[Dem4Life1102]

324. Nope and thanks again!

[wyldwolf]

325. Yep! And you're welcome.

[Dem4Life1102]

336. Nope

and thank you!

[wyldwolf]

339. yep! And you're welcome.

[Dem4Life1102]

342. No

Thanks again.

[wyldwolf]

344. Yes

You're welcome again.

[Dem4Life1102]

346. Nope and thanks!

[wyldwolf]

348. yes and your welcome!

[Dem4Life1102]

352. No

[wyldwolf]

354. Yes

[Dem4Life1102]

361. Nope!

[wyldwolf]

362. Yep!

[Dem4Life1102]

366. False!

[wyldwolf]

369. True!

[Dem4Life1102]

371. Nope and thanks again!

[wyldwolf]

373. Yep! And you're welcome again!

[Dem4Life1102]

375. No, no, no!!!

This is fun. It's like having a performing monkey.

[wyldwolf]

377. Yes, yes, yes!

This is fun. It’s like having a performing monkey.

[Dem4Life1102]

378. No!

[wyldwolf]

379. Yes!

[Dem4Life1102]

384. Nada!

[wyldwolf]

188. yup, a dumb op by someone who can't stand to be proven wrong

And me just having fun watching him twist in the wind. Purely for the entertainment value.

[Dem4Life1102]

199. Where have I been proven wrong?

I showed that only 25% of nominees have chosen a former Primary rival as their VP.

[wyldwolf]

202. through out the thread, which is why you've moved goal posts like these:

you set a 70 year time frame.

You then said only winners counted.

You then claimed 25% of the time is "an exception to the rule."

You then claimed there were no political parties in the late 1700s.

[Dem4Life1102]

247. Never moved any goal posts

I let you do that.

[wyldwolf]

250. Sure you did. Like "losing tickets don't count."

[Dem4Life1102]

284. And I still don't think they do

not a lie just my opinion. You can count them if you like but as I've already shown it is still only 25% of the time.

[wyldwolf]

285. That's hysterical!

You went from "Most Nominees don't pick a former primary opponent as VP" going back 70 years in your OP, to saying losing tickets don't count even though some picked a former primary opponent as VP.

[Dem4Life1102]

287. And most nominees don't

I used winning tickets as an example. But counting all tickets shows the same things. Just an observation of history. Why are some so threatened by it?

[wyldwolf]

306. But many do, including those who lose the GE.

[Dem4Life1102]

328. Yes many do

About 25%.

[wyldwolf]

330. And 25% is no where near being an exception to the rule as you've contended.

[Dem4Life1102]

333. Still only 25%

Which is least not most.

[wyldwolf]

334. and still nowhere near being an exception to the rule as you've contended.

[Dem4Life1102]

338. But it is still most

3 times as more.

[wyldwolf]

340. but certainly not an exception to the rule as you've contended.

[Dem4Life1102]

345. Still 3 times as more

which is most.

[wyldwolf]

347. but not an exception to the rule as you contended.

[Dem4Life1102]

351. But still most 3 times as more.

[wyldwolf]

353. but certainly not an exception to the rule as you've contended.

25% is a goal post move.

[Dem4Life1102]

364. No that was based on responding to your post

in which you went back to 1912. So are you claiming that you moved the goal post?

[wyldwolf]

367. I went back to the late 1700s

Remember? The part where you claimed political parties didn’t exist then?

[Dem4Life1102]

388. What primaries were held in the late 1700s?

And who won them?

[Polybius]

277. Here

You said "Going back almost 70 years there only 3 cases of a nominee picking a former primary opponent as VP, Johnson in 60, Bush in 80 and Biden in 08."

Kerry/Edwards!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Dem4Life1102]

286. I wasn't counting losing tickets

My bad for not being more specific. And to be fair I didn't count losing tickets where the nominee didn't choose a VP who wasn't a primary opponent either. But if you want to count nominees from both parties regardless of success you can go here: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=680032

As shown, only about 25% of the time have nominees chosen a former primary opponent as their VP. Just an observation of history.

[wyldwolf]

308. You moved a goal post

[Dem4Life1102]

311. Not at all

I counted the last 10 elections and only winning tickets. If all are counted as done here: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=680032 my observation is still correct.

[wyldwolf]

314. A complete goal post move

You only added the the caveat about losing tickets when it was pointed out your numbers were wrong.

[Dem4Life1102]

318. Well before it was 30%

counting just the winning tickets in the last 10 elections. Counting both winners and losers since 1912 it is not 25%. So my original observation is still correct. Just some historical facts. Nothing to be threatened by.

[wyldwolf]

320. Why 1912? You originally said "going back 70 years." Goal post move.

[Dem4Life1102]

326. Last 10 elections

is 70 years but I don't mind going back further. Not a goal post move at all.

[wyldwolf]

327. Why last 10 elections? Why not every election - including losing tickets?

[Dem4Life1102]

335. 10 seemed like a nice round number

But don't mind going back further to look at both winners and losers. Then it is only 25%.

[wyldwolf]

337. So is 12. So is 20. But 10 seemed like a number that would bolster your point best.

[Dem4Life1102]

349. I don't care how many you want to look at

looking back more seems to prove my observation more.

[wyldwolf]

350. because you know the more elections looked at, the weaker your point gets.

[Dem4Life1102]

355. Not a point

but an observation. Nothing to be threatened by. But anyone is welcome to look back further.

[wyldwolf]

356. It was your point

The further back we looked, the weaker your point was.

[Dem4Life1102]

359. Really?

How so? It went from 30% to 25% going from 70 years to 108 years. Is there a specific time frame you want to set?

[wyldwolf]

360. Yes, really.

[Dem4Life1102]

365. So what time frame do you want to set?

[wyldwolf]

370. How about the very first election?

Including losing tickets?

[Dem4Life1102]

374. OK

Feel free to post them plus the results of the primaries that show a primary rival was selected as VP by the nominee.

[wyldwolf]

376. Already posted the first two

But since you’re trying to make a point, feel free to post more.

[Dem4Life1102]

380. Then post the rest

I guess the next would be the election of 1796. What primaries did Adams and Jefferson run in against each other that year?

[wyldwolf]

382. It's your point to prove. You're op.

[Dem4Life1102]

385. I've proved it here:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=680032

Prove me wrong.

[wyldwolf]

389. That wasn't proof. And you've been proved wrong.

[Dem4Life1102]

392. How wasn't it proof?

And how was it proved wrong?

2012 (D): Obama / Biden (Biden was STILL Obama's primary rival)

Biden didn't run in any primaries in 12 and their GOP opponent Romey chose Ryan who didn't run in any primaries

2008 (D): Obama / Biden

True but McCain choose Palin who didn't run in any primaries.

2004 (D): John Kerry and John Edwards

OK but you leave out 2000. Neither Lieberman or Cheney ran in the primaries that year.

1996 (R): Bob Dole and Jack Kemp

OK but again you leave out both 1992 and 1988. Gore didn't run in 92 and neither Bentsen or Qualye ran in 88

1984 (R): Ronald Reagan and Bush I (Bush was STILL Reagan's primary rival)

There were no GOP primaries that year and Ferraro did run in the Dem primaries.

1980 (R): Ronald Reagan and Bush I

Yes but you omitted 76. Neither Mondale or Dole ran in the primaries.

1972 (R): Nixon / Agnew (Agnew was STILL Nixon's primary running mate)

True and neither of McGovern's running mates ran in the primaries.

1968 (R): Nixon / Agnew

Agnew didn't run in any primaries and neither did Muskie.

And in 1964 Goldwater's running mate William Miller didn't run in any primaries. And Johnson was opposed by George Wallace in the Dem primaries not by Humphrey.

1960 (D): John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson

Actually Johnson didn't run in any primaries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries#Candidates) but made a play for the nomination at the convention and Nixon's running mate Henry Cabot Lodge didn't run in primaries either.

1956 (D): Adlai Stevenson and Estes Kefauver

OK but in 1952 Stevenson nor his running mate John Sparkman ran in any primaries. They were choosen at the convention. And Nixon didn't run in any primaries either.

1948 (R): Thomas Dewey and Earl Warren (Warren was a favorite-son candidate)

Yes and Truman's primary opponent was William Julian not his running mate Alben Barkley.

1944 (R): Thomas Dewey and John Bricker

OK and FDR's primary opponents were Joseph Ferguson and Harry Byrd not his VP Truman.

In 1940 neither FDR or Wendell Willkie picked a primary opponent at VP.

1936 (R): Alf Landon and Frank Knox

Yes and FDR's primary opponent Henry Breckinridge wasn't his running mate.

1932 (D): Franklin Roosevelt and John Nance Garner (X3)

Yes and Hoover had 4 primary opponents that year, none of whom were his running mate.

1928 (R): Herbert Hoover and Charles Curtis

Curtis didn't run in any GOP primary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1928_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries) nor did Smith's VP Joe Robinson.

And since you skipped 1924, neither Coolidge's or Davis' running mates ran in any primaries, in fact neither Davis he was chosen at the convention. In 1920 Cox chose FDR as his running mate, who didn't run in a primary that year. And Harding chose Coolidge who also didn't run in a primary that year.

1916 (R): Charles Evans Hughes and Charles Fairbanks

True

1912 (D): Woodrow Wilson and Thomas Marshall (Marshall was a favorite-son candidate)

Marshall didn't run in any primary in 1912 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1912_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries) neither did Taft's running mate Butler.

Since there were no primaries before 1912 there is no point to go on. But let's not forget our latest election in 2016 where neither VP candidate Pence or Kaine ran in their parties primaries.

So in the 27 presidential elections since the beginning of the primary system, with a total of 52 Republican or Democratic nominees, there were a total of 13 times that a nominee choose a former primary opponent as their running mate. 13 is 25% of the time. So 75% of the time they didn't. Now what would you call the norm 75% or 25%? I think my point has been proved. Thanks.

Please point out the specific places that I was in error.

[wyldwolf]

394. We must have missed that in your op.

[Dem4Life1102]

395. Please show me where what I posted was in error?

Just point the errors out.

2012 (D): Obama / Biden (Biden was STILL Obama's primary rival)

Biden didn't run in any primaries in 12 and their GOP opponent Romey chose Ryan who didn't run in any primaries

2008 (D): Obama / Biden

True but McCain choose Palin who didn't run in any primaries.

2004 (D): John Kerry and John Edwards

OK but you leave out 2000. Neither Lieberman or Cheney ran in the primaries that year.

1996 (R): Bob Dole and Jack Kemp

OK but again you leave out both 1992 and 1988. Gore didn't run in 92 and neither Bentsen or Qualye ran in 88

1984 (R): Ronald Reagan and Bush I (Bush was STILL Reagan's primary rival)

There were no GOP primaries that year and Ferraro did run in the Dem primaries.

1980 (R): Ronald Reagan and Bush I

Yes but you omitted 76. Neither Mondale or Dole ran in the primaries.

1972 (R): Nixon / Agnew (Agnew was STILL Nixon's primary running mate)

True and neither of McGovern's running mates ran in the primaries.

1968 (R): Nixon / Agnew

Agnew didn't run in any primaries and neither did Muskie.

And in 1964 Goldwater's running mate William Miller didn't run in any primaries. And Johnson was opposed by George Wallace in the Dem primaries not by Humphrey.

1960 (D): John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson

Actually Johnson didn't run in any primaries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries#Candidates) but made a play for the nomination at the convention and Nixon's running mate Henry Cabot Lodge didn't run in primaries either.

1956 (D): Adlai Stevenson and Estes Kefauver

OK but in 1952 Stevenson nor his running mate John Sparkman ran in any primaries. They were choosen at the convention. And Nixon didn't run in any primaries either.

1948 (R): Thomas Dewey and Earl Warren (Warren was a favorite-son candidate)

Yes and Truman's primary opponent was William Julian not his running mate Alben Barkley.

1944 (R): Thomas Dewey and John Bricker

OK and FDR's primary opponents were Joseph Ferguson and Harry Byrd not his VP Truman.

In 1940 neither FDR or Wendell Willkie picked a primary opponent at VP.

1936 (R): Alf Landon and Frank Knox

Yes and FDR's primary opponent Henry Breckinridge wasn't his running mate.

1932 (D): Franklin Roosevelt and John Nance Garner (X3)

Yes and Hoover had 4 primary opponents that year, none of whom were his running mate.

1928 (R): Herbert Hoover and Charles Curtis

Curtis didn't run in any GOP primary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1928_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries) nor did Smith's VP Joe Robinson.

And since you skipped 1924, neither Coolidge's or Davis' running mates ran in any primaries, in fact neither Davis he was chosen at the convention. In 1920 Cox chose FDR as his running mate, who didn't run in a primary that year. And Harding chose Coolidge who also didn't run in a primary that year.

1916 (R): Charles Evans Hughes and Charles Fairbanks

True

1912 (D): Woodrow Wilson and Thomas Marshall (Marshall was a favorite-son candidate)

Marshall didn't run in any primary in 1912 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1912_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries) neither did Taft's running mate Butler.

Since there were no primaries before 1912 there is no point to go on. But let's not forget our latest election in 2016 where neither VP candidate Pence or Kaine ran in their parties primaries.

So in the 27 presidential elections since the beginning of the primary system, with a total of 52 Republican or Democratic nominees, there were a total of 13 times that a nominee choose a former primary opponent as their running mate. 13 is 25% of the time. So 75% of the time they didn't. Now what would you call the norm 75% or 25%? I think my point has been proved. Thanks.

[wyldwolf]

398. Please show us that in your op.

[Dem4Life1102]

400. Well you are free to show where my OP is factually incorrect

as well as the factual inaccuracies in this post.

2012 (D): Obama / Biden (Biden was STILL Obama's primary rival)

Biden didn't run in any primaries in 12 and their GOP opponent Romey chose Ryan who didn't run in any primaries

2008 (D): Obama / Biden

True but McCain choose Palin who didn't run in any primaries.

2004 (D): John Kerry and John Edwards

OK but you leave out 2000. Neither Lieberman or Cheney ran in the primaries that year.

1996 (R): Bob Dole and Jack Kemp

OK but again you leave out both 1992 and 1988. Gore didn't run in 92 and neither Bentsen or Qualye ran in 88

1984 (R): Ronald Reagan and Bush I (Bush was STILL Reagan's primary rival)

There were no GOP primaries that year and Ferraro did run in the Dem primaries.

1980 (R): Ronald Reagan and Bush I

Yes but you omitted 76. Neither Mondale or Dole ran in the primaries.

1972 (R): Nixon / Agnew (Agnew was STILL Nixon's primary running mate)

True and neither of McGovern's running mates ran in the primaries.

1968 (R): Nixon / Agnew

Agnew didn't run in any primaries and neither did Muskie.

And in 1964 Goldwater's running mate William Miller didn't run in any primaries. And Johnson was opposed by George Wallace in the Dem primaries not by Humphrey.

1960 (D): John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson

Actually Johnson didn't run in any primaries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries#Candidates) but made a play for the nomination at the convention and Nixon's running mate Henry Cabot Lodge didn't run in primaries either.

1956 (D): Adlai Stevenson and Estes Kefauver

OK but in 1952 Stevenson nor his running mate John Sparkman ran in any primaries. They were choosen at the convention. And Nixon didn't run in any primaries either.

1948 (R): Thomas Dewey and Earl Warren (Warren was a favorite-son candidate)

Yes and Truman's primary opponent was William Julian not his running mate Alben Barkley.

1944 (R): Thomas Dewey and John Bricker

OK and FDR's primary opponents were Joseph Ferguson and Harry Byrd not his VP Truman.

In 1940 neither FDR or Wendell Willkie picked a primary opponent at VP.

1936 (R): Alf Landon and Frank Knox

Yes and FDR's primary opponent Henry Breckinridge wasn't his running mate.

1932 (D): Franklin Roosevelt and John Nance Garner (X3)

Yes and Hoover had 4 primary opponents that year, none of whom were his running mate.

1928 (R): Herbert Hoover and Charles Curtis

Curtis didn't run in any GOP primary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1928_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries) nor did Smith's VP Joe Robinson.

And since you skipped 1924, neither Coolidge's or Davis' running mates ran in any primaries, in fact neither Davis he was chosen at the convention. In 1920 Cox chose FDR as his running mate, who didn't run in a primary that year. And Harding chose Coolidge who also didn't run in a primary that year.

1916 (R): Charles Evans Hughes and Charles Fairbanks

True

1912 (D): Woodrow Wilson and Thomas Marshall (Marshall was a favorite-son candidate)

Marshall didn't run in any primary in 1912 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1912_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries) neither did Taft's running mate Butler.

Since there were no primaries before 1912 there is no point to go on. But let's not forget our latest election in 2016 where neither VP candidate Pence or Kaine ran in their parties primaries.

So in the 27 presidential elections since the beginning of the primary system, with a total of 52 Republican or Democratic nominees, there were a total of 13 times that a nominee choose a former primary opponent as their running mate. 13 is 25% of the time. So 75% of the time they didn't. Now what would you call the norm 75% or 25%? I think my point has been proved. Thanks.

[Gothmog]

292. I am comfortable with whoever Joe selects

[hlthe2b]

368. Kennedy picked LBJ, Reagan picked George H.W. Bush

[Dem4Life1102]

372. Very true

and noted that in the OP.