Board Thread:Questions and Answers/@comment-10975360-20131014124545/@comment-32656-20131120150200

Dan Quayle was a member of the US Senate prior to becoming Vice-President. There is no comparison whatsoever.

Really, there'd be no advantage to having him on the ticket. And if Hilary or a minority has the top of that ticket, then there's simply no way. Don't want to risk pissing off too many, you know?

Had he been the nominee in 76, they'd have won. The two biggest concerns about Ford were his curtain flub in the one debate, and more importantly his pardon of Nixon (admittedly, not as much Ford's fault as it was made out to be - Nixon was supposed to publicly admit and apologize for it. He did not.) Reagan was not tarred with either brush. Carter, a nobody - which Reagan was definitely not - would have lost badly.

Reagan was also far more moderate than you and most people think. The Repubs today may wish for him back in charge, but were he, they'd be trying to get rid of him like they do moderates in their party.

Doubt he would run for a second term, but he's in good health - better than Hilary, in fact - and would be fine. His parents lived, despite a rather poor upbringing, well past average lifespans as well. Age and Health should not be a problem.

His views are ones that would be considered more acceptable than those of the President, and he actually does have some charisma. Calling him a "creature of congress" - and then paining Ford with that same brush - is inaccurate, at best. It simply isn't true.

You mistake a congressional win for a change in votes. That one was really more about anger than anything. As for Dole and age, that's overstated - Clinton's attack ads had entrenched that opinion long before Dole started his own campaign. Think of it as being like what Obama was able to do with regards to Romney.

Biden can do that about as well as Clinton, imo.