2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Should President Obama pick a new VP? [View all]CreekDog
(46,192 posts)If you're going to offer up the FDR thing as proof, then you should at least know what you're talking about. FDR didn't replace them because of their age.
http://www.quora.com/U-S-History/How-did-FDR-replace-his-Vice-President-twice-when-it-seems-so-politically-challenging-now
U.S. History: How did FDR replace his Vice President twice when it seems so politically challenging now?
Craig Montuori, Study it, live it, and love it.
11 votes by Marc Bodnick, Anon User, Anon User, (more)
Risk/reward.
The risks to President Roosevelt keeping the same ticket were much higher than the switch in both 1940 and 1944:
1940: a VP who actively opposes you for the nomination after opposing you for two years in the Senate (Garner), or
1944: one who will provoke a party rebellion for being a mystic with potential national security implications, when the party insiders all can recognize the failing health of the President (Wallace).