Humanities desk
< December 5	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 7 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 6

World War Three

Assume that a war of Iran vs. USA starts next year. What are the chances that China and North Korea will ally with Iran, and take advantage of the situation and attempt the reaquisition of Taiwan and South Korea, stating WWIII? Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have zero way of predicting the future on here. But North Korea is a poverty state at this point. China will probably get Taiwan back from just sitting around long enough. Neither really has any incentive to start a proxy war with the US. China is unlikely to risk the crippling sanctions that would follow if they took Taiwan by force. If either had wanted to take advantage of the US being militarily overdrawn, they could have done it anytime during the last decade. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do sincerely hope you're wrong about your third sentence. Unless, of course, sitting around long enough, they'll become a liberal country; then that would be fine. --Trovatore (talk) 03:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, but I suspect it would look something like the situation in Hong Kong (see One country, two systems), which isn't so bad. But I'm not a Sinologist. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't so bad for now. That deal is only good for fifty years, of which what, eleven or twelve are already gone? I very much hope that, long before that time expires, China will be a very different place — but if I were Taiwanese and had kids, I wouldn't want to bet on it. --Trovatore (talk) 02:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I were an American (which technically I am) and I had kids (I don't and won't), I wouldn't bet on it being a great place to live in 50 years, either. Just an observation. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are lots of ways the whole world could get less pleasant, but that's kind of orthogonal to the point. I'm much more confident that America will have a liberal political system fifty years from now than I am that China will. --Trovatore (talk) 18:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

China: 0.000000000. Losing its second biggest export market, presumably followed soon after by its largest (European Union), would wreck its economy and destabilize the regime. Besides, even if China were nutty enough to try it, the U.S. Navy wouldn't have a whole lot to do, so it would still be a bit of a bother getting across the Taiwan Strait in one piece. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look at Europe! I think the next World War will be ignited where all major wars seem to start, in Europe. And it will start because of the "peace and prosperity bringing" Euro. I'd rather have a "great and benevolent leader" than this dictatorship in disguise. This will be ridiculed a lot in history books, because it was released just months before the world really understood what the consequences of a forced idealized world invented by politicians could be. Joepnl (talk) 03:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe a WWIII could otherwise be started thus: Israel launches a preemptive strike against Iran. Russia has good relations with Iran, so it joins Iran in retaliation. USA and UK which is an ally of Israel, joins the conflict and goes to war with Russia. China and North Korea are inturn allies with Russia, they see opportunity for territorial expansion, North Korea with the help of Russia invades South Korea. Enter the other nations. Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW there's no alliance between the UK and Israel. Alansplodge (talk) 13:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It could also be started by mermaids invading Japan and tricking them into attacking China, then space aliens step in and get China to attack Hawaii. Finally, the hedgehogs turn out to be super-intelligent and figure out how to down all the military spy satellites, causing everyone to point fingers at one another - oh, and the worms have machine guns. Why not? We're not discussing something that is referenced on a reference desk. We're just making childish banter about make believe. -- kainaw ™ 04:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? My speculation is based on existing political relations and attitudes. Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are speculating. That belongs on a message board, not on a reference desk. In case it isn't obvious, this is a reference desk. -- kainaw ™ 04:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did say that I was speculating, I was just pointing out that China's involvement isn't key in initiating a world war. Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Russia is never ever going to risk World War III for Iran. Kainaw's scenario is just as likely. Hedgehogs ... and gophers. Yeah, that's it. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Otters. 20.137.18.53 (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why then did Russia's foreign minister just give a warning that an attack by Israel on Iran would be a "serious mistake" with "unpredictable consequences"? What are their intentions then? Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this almost how WWI started? Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the story you're referring to and it's clear that Lavrov was not saying that Russia would retaliate against Israel. As Clarityfiend says, that is never going to happen. --Viennese Waltz 10:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The scenario under discussion was, I believe, Israel taking unilateral action against Iran without the support of its allies. If that happened, and you ended up with a war between just Iran and Israel (with everyone else staying back for fear of escalating the conflict), then the consequences would be unpredicatable. Israel could only guarantee victory with US help, and it's hard to say whether the US would get involved or not - it has relations with Russia and China to think about (they wouldn't go to outright war with the US over it, of course, but have other ways to influence US policy). --Tango (talk) 12:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but I don't understand why you seem so sure of yourself that Russia won't enter the conflict. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because why would they? Why would they risk international condemnation by getting involved in a protracted and expensive military conflict? What would they get out of it? --Viennese Waltz 11:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To put in another way... This is a REFERENCE DESK. Instead of asking "Would Russia enter some imaginary conflict in the future?", you should ask "Has Russia demonstrated that it would enter a conflict under some specific set of events?" Then, we can reiterate that Russia has not demonstrated anything like that and the discussion is over. -- kainaw ™ 15:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that while Russia may have good relations with Iran, that doesn't mean they want a new nuclear power that close to their southern border, especially since all of Iran's neighbors would then start their own nuclear programs, so they could defend themselves. The net result of a nuclear Iran is a far more dangerous situation for Russia. StuRat (talk) 16:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The advantage to Russia for a nuclear or quasi-nuclear Iran is that it ties up the United States and may complicate the Middle East (which raises the oil prices that the Russian economy is rather dependent on). I'm not sure Moscow perceives Iran as being terribly close to its borders. I'm not sure it's that worried about blowback from a regional Middle Eastern war. I suspect its worst fears of such an eventuality come from the possibility of loose nukes getting to Chechnya, but that's not a guaranteed or necessarily likely thing. I don't know. If I were Russia I wouldn't mind a nuclear Iran. If I believed in deterrence at all I wouldn't necessarily believe it increases Russian risk very much. It's a long way from Tehran to Moscow. The idea that nuclear weapons necessarily make things difficult for everybody is primarily held in the United States, because the United States enjoys the greatest freedom of action around the world. For other countries, though, a hampered United States is actually a boon, because it grants them greater latitude in their respective regions. A US involved in the Middle East is a US that is reasonably pliable with regards to Russia, especially if Pakistan can't keep a lid on its own troubles, which gives Russia an opportunity to be Very Good Friend to US. But this is just blue skying of things (though you can see pretty similar sentiments in the NY Times editorial pages the last few weeks). I just wanted to point out that there are a lot of different ways to analyze the strategic situation of a nuclear Iran other than "everybody would be unhappy." --Mr.98 (talk) 22:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Russia is closer to Iran than Israel is, and within range of missiles which Iran possesses. I'd think of it like how the US would view a nuclear Mexico (or Guatemala, if you prefer). We have no reason to fear a nuclear attack anytime soon, but who knows what governments those nations might have in the future. Iran could very well be the next in line for the wave of revolutions in the Muslim world, and a pro-US nation might emerge. And, if not, don't forget that Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and even Afghanistan might well feel threatened enough by Iran's nukes to get their own, either by developing their own or by having US nukes stationed there as a credible deterrent. StuRat (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Russia cities and industrial centers (and nuclear facilities) are spread over a wide geographic area that is quite far from Iran. It's not comparable with Israel. Neither is the state of the Russian deterrent. There's no way in hell that it would ever be in Iran's interest to get into a shooting war with Russia. I think a Russian strategist could see this as a very unlikely outcome. I don't think a nuclear Iran would particularly worry Moscow. I'm not sure a nuclear Saudi Arabia would either — this is a regional nuclear arms race, not one with much threat of expanding to be much more international. Iraq is unlikely to get into the WMD business anytime soon; Afghanistan utterly lacks the infrastructure and expertise, much less the motivation (a nuclear Iran would not change their security situation, except making them even more important for Americans; the US does not need to put nukes in Afghanistan to have a credible deterrent, it's one of the pluses of having ICBMs, SLBMs, cruise missiles, and B-2s). Comparing Russian attitudes with American ones is misleading — Russia has lived with nuclear states on their borders for decades, and there is really no possibility that they will ever live in any other state of things, as long as there are nukes. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Lest you suspect that it is too outrageous for an existing nuclear state to think that regional nuclear acquisition could work in their interest, note that this is exactly the reason that France helped Israel get the bomb in the 1960s — to tie up the Egyptians so they couldn't interfere with French interests in Northern Africa — and exactly the reason that China helped Pakistan get the bomb in the 1980s — to tie up India and the United States. It's not far-fetched for regional nuclear development to be strategically advantageous for other nuclear powers. The only country that never benefits from such an outcome is the USA, because the USA is the one who always stands to lose freedom of action, because they're the only country, these days, who tries to have the ability to project power everywhere.) --Mr.98 (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

US nukes aren't a credible deterrent because nobody believes they would be used against a nation with nukes of it's own, unless the US was nuked first. As far as Afghanistan goes, if it returns to being controlled by Pakistan via their Inter-Services Intelligence agency and the Taliban, then Pakistan may very well arm them to prevent an Iranian takeover. And just as the Taliban felt it was bad manners to refuse hospitality to al Queada, they would also not want to be rude in refusing to sell nukes to Chechen rebels. StuRat (talk) 04:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what "deterrent" means? Your first sentence suggests not. And the idea that Pakistan would give Afghanistan a nuclear program is just silly. They like to play with fire but they aren't stupid. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know what a deterrent is, and if everybody knows the US won't use it's weapons, then they cease to work as a deterrent, say if Iran chose to nuke Iraq in a repeat of the Iran-Iraq war. The problem with Pakistan is that nobody appears to be in charge, and the ISI, in particular, does whatever it damn well pleases with no apparent accounting to anyone. I don't know if they have access to nukes, but it's not out of the question. If the ISI saw Afghanistan about to fall to Iran, you bet they would do anything in their power to stop it. StuRat (talk) 14:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...Why? Presumably Iran would be as ineffective at taking over Afghanistan as everyone else who has ever tried to do that. And why would Iran want to take over Afghanistan in the first place? This whole thread makes absolutely no sense. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If people believe that the US will use its nuclear weapons in the event of a nuclear attack, and thus decline to nuke the US, then it makes the US in possession of a credible deterrent. I think you're getting mixed up on that point. The fact that the US (probably) won't use the weapons first doesn't get rid of the fact that they are a credible deterrent. If you mean that they will not deter all forms of attack, that's clear, but that's not what deterrence is really about. Now if you mean that the US nukes are not a deterrent against Iran nuking other countries — it depends. In the past the US has expanded its "nuclear umbrella" to include various other nations it considers important enough to risk nuclear war. (What would actually occur is of course unknown. I suspect, as did many Europeans in the 1980s, that the US would be willing to lose quite a lot of good friends if it avoided a real nuclear exchange in the process. Fortunately we never had to find out. The uncertainty in such a proposition, though, probably does have a deterrent effect.) I don't know whether it would do so in the case of Iraq; probably not. But I don't see why it would move missiles to Afghanistan as a result of that — it wouldn't be changing the strategic calculus at all. (The US would certainly not give nukes to Afghanistan.) The ISI is indeed a pretty rogue group but they are still not a stupid group. Everything they do is pretty calculated. I don't see them ever coming to the conclusion that a nuclear Afghanistan is in their interests — the country is just too unstable. I also don't see the ISI and Iran as being necessarily opposed to one another — they have a lot of shared interests. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're finally starting to understand, I think, that US nuclear weapons are no deterrent against Iran nuking it's neighbors, unless they are placed in those nations. As for Afghanistan being terribly unstable, well, so is Pakistan, but it didn't stop them. And Iran seems very interested in controlling it's neighbors, and has for decades now. StuRat (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The US would still control said nuclear weapons, so there's no difference in basing them closer or not. It would still be the US using them. The US would not (and has never done so) give another country nuclear weapons under their own control. And there's a world of difference between Pakistan developing its own nuclear weapons and Pakistan giving them to another country. And Iran is of course interested in controlling (certain) actions of its neighbors, as is Israel, Saudi Arabia, the United States, the United Kingdom, and any other nation that has enough organization for an active foreign policy. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From a strategic standpoint, I don't see any advantage for Russia in going to actual war with Israel over Iran. Warning Israel that preliminary attacks would have unpredictable consequences is not exactly limited to Russia (frankly it is kind of obvious). I don't think Russia wants (more) actual war in the region, but I don't see them as a participant. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome answer 98, that is exactly the kind of answer that I'm looking for. Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Been there, didn’t do that. Let’s say, just for argument’s sake, that the United States launches an unprovoked war of aggression against Iraq. I mean, Iran. Wouldn’t China take advantage of this elective war to launch its own? Well, they didn’t so we can probably concluded that they won’t. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stalin speaking Georgian

Is there any recording of Stalin speaking Georgian? LANTZY ^TALK 06:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to this site, "it is reported that in his last years his ability to speak Russian deteriorated, and he spoke only in Georgian". They don't seem to give a reference for this, though. 130.88.99.217 (talk) 11:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The second chapter of the book Stalin: A New History says that Stalin "never became a Georgian nationalist, although he was Georgian by birth, language, and the formative culture of his childhood." Gabbe (talk) 12:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I thought it just barely possible that he had made a radio address or something in his native language. LANTZY ^TALK 21:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I need to find the cheapest community college in Kansas.

Unfortunately, Google doesn't do a price-search on community colleges, and there's no known interface like autotrader.com where we can sort colleges in a given state, by price.

Therefore, what community college offers the lowest cost per credit-hour (and fees, perhaps, so maybe overall as well)?

(If you'd like, you can list the cheapest 5 or 10 community colleges in Kansas.) Thanks. --70.179.174.101 (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First off, are you sure that prices vary at all ? Since community colleges often receive state grants, it wouldn't surprise me if they insisted on regulating the price per credit hour in return. StuRat (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The prices apparently do vary. Visiting the websites for Allen County and Barton, I discovered that for Kansas residents, the former costs $75 per credit hour, the latter $84. Repeating the process for the remaining 17 Kansas CCs would yield the least expensive. Not the most elegant approach, I realize. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping me influence my future choices. They're a possibility, but probably won't be within 1 1/4 hours of Lindsborg. (In this case, what cheapest colleges would be? Thanks.) --70.179.174.101 (talk) 05:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If Kansas is similar to Pennsylvania, its community colleges will have three levels of tuition:

Lowest, for in-county or in-region residents
Middle, for residents of other Kansas counties or regions
Highest, for non-residents of Kansas.

If I'm correct, the cheapest one for you will likely be the one closest to you. Nyttend (talk) 01:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While not apparently equal to some other states, the Kansas Lottery appears to have funding specifically for community colleges. That should be taken into account as it is not a loan so it is clearly a reduction in fees paid. -- kainaw ™ 02:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page by the Kansas State Dept. of Education lists all CCs in the state, and has a map indicating where each is located. It provides links to each college. By visiting the website of the community colleges closest to Lindsborg and entering the word tuition in the search box on the front page, you can determine which is the cheapest per credit hour. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 13:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Josef Bühler's foot

In his (post mortem) appearance in the alternate-history novel Fatherland, Josef Bühler has a porcelain prosthetic foot. Did the real Bühler have one? I can't find any source that says he did, suggesting the foot is alternate not history. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 17:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other name on the second term's ballot

When, if ever, has a two-term US President run with another vice president running mate on the ballot for the second term? 20.137.18.53 (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like FDR had a different running mate on the ballot for each of his three terms, but I asked for two-termers that had different running mates on the ballot the second time around. 20.137.18.53 (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abe Lincoln had Hannibal Hamlin for his first term and Andrew Johnson for his second. Johnson acceded to the presidency; Hamlin missed out. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what happened to Hannibal Hamlin ? Was he busy driving elephants across a mountain range or employed to lure rats out of town, only to feast on them with chianti and fava beans ? StuRat (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC) [reply]

FDR was elected four times, not three. He had the same running mate, John Nance Garner in 1932 and 1936, Henry Wallace in 1940, and Truman in 1944. Thomas Jefferson had Aaron Burr for his first term and George Clinton for his second. James Madison had George Clinton for his first term and Elbridge Gerry for his second, but Clinton had died, so Madison couldn't keep the same running mate. Andrew Jackson had John C. Calhoun for his first term and Martin van Buren for his second. Ulysses S. Grant had Schuyler Colfax for his first term and Henry Wilson for his second. McKinley had Garrett A. Hobart for his first term and Teddy Roosevelt for his second, but again, Hobart had died. Pais (talk) 19:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) William McKinley - his first VP died in 1899 before the 1900 election. (Then McKinley was killed in 1901.) Rmhermen (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see Grover Cleveland had Thomas Hendricks his first time and Adlai E. Stevenson his second. 20.137.18.53 (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't elected the second time, but Theodore Roosevelt had a different running mate, Hiram Johnson, when he ran in 1912 than he had for vice president from 1905-1909, Charles W. Fairbanks. --Jayron32 20:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

¶ This one happens to be right up my alley, since I've gone over it in a completely amateur way so many times (and the tickets that stuck together is one of the only two Sporcle quizzes I ever created, although one that only a hundred people have tried.) An asterisk (*) and ~~strikeout type~~ indicates a lost bid for re-election.

John Adams 1796 Thomas Pinckney (Federalist); ~~1800* Charles Cotesworth Pinckney (Fed.)~~
Thomas Jefferson 1800 Aaron Burr (Democratic-Republican); 1804 George Clinton (D-R)
James Madison 1808 Geo. Clinton (D-R) (died April 1812); 1812 Elbridge Gerry (D-R) (died Nov. 1814)
John Quincy Adams 1824 (D-R) John C. Calhoun (D-R); ~~1828* (National Republican) Richard Rush (N-R)~~
Andrew Jackson 1828 John C. Calhoun (Democratic) (resigned Dec. 1832); 1832 Martin Van Buren (D)
Abraham Lincoln 1860 (Republican) Hannibal Hamlin (R); 1864 (Union Republican) Andrew Johnson (Union Democratic)
Ulysses S. Grant 1868 Schuyler Colfax (R); 1872 Henry Wilson (R) (died Nov. 1875)
Grover Cleveland 1884 Thomas Hendricks (D) (died Nov. 1885); ~~1888* Allen G. Thurman (D)~~; 1892 Adlai Stevenson (D)
Benjamin Harrison 1888 Levi P. Morton (R); ~~1892* Whitelaw Reid (R)~~
William McKinley 1896 Garret Hobart (R) (died Nov. 1899); 1900 Theodore Roosevelt (R)
Theodore Roosevelt 1904 (R) Charles W. Fairbanks (R); ~~1912* (Progressive) Hiram Johnson (Prog.)~~
William Howard Taft 1908 (R) James S. Sherman (R); ~~1912* James Sherman (R) (died Oct. 30, 1912), then Nicholas Murray Butler (R)~~
Franklin D. Roosevelt 1932 & 1936 John Nance Garner (D); 1940 Henry A. Wallace (D); 1944 Harry Truman (D)

The inevitable notes: (1) As the runner-up in Electoral Votes (before they were divided into Presidential and Vice Presidential ballots), Thomas Jefferson (D-R) was John Adams' Vice President, although he ran for President against Adams in both 1796 and 1800; (2) John C. Calhoun was unopposed for Vice President in 1824, so all four candidates, including J.Q. Adams and Andrew Jackson, could be classified as his running-mate; (3) Martin Van Buren ran with Richard M. Johnson in both 1836 (successfully) and 1840 (unsuccessfully); in 1848 Van Buren ran as the Presidential candidate of the Free Soil Party with Charles Francis Adams, Sr. as his running mate; (4) James Sherman was renominated for V-P at the 1912 Republican convention, but died on October 30, days before the general election on November 5; the Republican National Committee named Nicholas Murray Butler as the GOP Vice-Presidential candidate after many ballots had already been printed; (5) Had Lyndon Johnson sought and won renomination in 1968, his vice-presidential nominee would most likely have been sitting Vice President Hubert Humphrey; however when Harry Truman first sought renomination in 1952, he was running against his own Vice President, Alben Barkley; (6) Nelson Rockefeller was Gerald Ford's appointed Vice President (although neither had run in a general presidential election), but Ford chose Robert Dole to be his running-mate in 1976.

If the thrust of your question, however, is how unusual would it be for Barack Obama to run next year with a Vice Presidential candidate other than the incumbent Joe Biden (for example, Hillary Clinton), then the answer is it would be very unusual for the 20th and 21st centuries; the main exceptions (besides 1912) are the quite unusual circumstances of 1940 (when FDR's indecision on seeking a third term prompted John N. Garner to seek the Presidency for himself) and 1976 when neither Gerald Ford nor Nelson Rockefeller had ever been elected to national office.

[1789 & 1792 George Washington–John Adams (no party or Federalist)]
1816 & 1820 James Monroe–Daniel D. Tompkins (D-R)
1836 & 1840* Van Buren–Richard M. Johnson (D)
1908 & 1912* Taft–Sherman (R) [then Taft–Butler (R)]
1912 & 1916 Woodrow Wilson–Thomas R. Marshall (D)
1928 & 1932* Herbert Hoover–Charles Curtis (R)
1932 & 1936 FDR–John N. Garner (D) [then 1940 FDR–Wallace (D) and 1944 FDR–Truman (D)]
1952 & 1956 Dwight D. Eisenhower–Richard Nixon (R)
1968 & 1972 Nixon–Spiro Agnew (R) [Nixon had lost in 1960 with Henry Cabot Lodge as his running-mate]
1976 & 1980* Jimmy Carter–Walter Mondale (D)
1980 & 1984 Ronald Reagan–George Herbert Walker Bush (R)
1988 & 1992* George H.W. Bush–Dan Quayle (R)
1992 & 1996 Bill Clinton–Albert A. Gore, Jr. (D)
2000 & 2004 George Walker Bush–Richard Cheney (R)

Note: Washington was unopposed in 1789 and 1792, running with no particular Vice-Presidential candidate.

—— Shakescene (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's unusual for a party to renominate a losing candidate, but when that happens, it's usually with a different vice-presidential candidate. Here are some selected, hurried major-party examples:

Jefferson 1796* & 1800 Aaron Burr (D-R); 1804 George Clinton (D-R)

Andrew Jackson ~~1824* (D-R) Calhoun [but see note above] (D-R)~~; 1828 (D) Calhoun (D); 1832 (D) Van Buren (D)

Henry Clay ~~1824* (D-R) Calhoun [but see note above] (D-R); 1832* (N-R) John Sergeant (N-R); 1844* (Whig) Theodore Frelinghuysen (Whig)~~

William Henry Harrison ~~1836* Francis Granger (Whig)~~; 1840 John Tyler (Whig, ex-D)

William Jennings Bryan ~~1896* (D & People's Party) Arthur Sewall (D) and Thomas E. Watson (People's); 1900* (D) Adlai Stevenson (D); 1908* (D) John W. Kern (D)~~

Thomas E. Dewey ~~1944* John W. Bricker (R); 1948* Earl Warren (R)~~

Adlai Stevenson, Jr. ~~1952* John Sparkman (D); 1956* Estes Kefauver (D)~~

Richard Nixon ~~1960* Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. (R)~~; 1968 & 1972 Spiro Agnew (R)

Note: Jefferson and Burr each received 73 electoral votes (undifferentiated between President and Vice President) in 1800, so the U.S. House of Representatives decided between them and gave the Presidency to Jefferson. The 12th Amendment, ratified in 1804, gave one presidential and one vice-presidential ballot to each Elector.
—— Shakescene (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yah. One cannot properly talk about "running mates" until after 1804. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be pedantic, one cannot properly talk of "running mates" before 1804, but one can speak of them in 1804 and subsequent elections. The 12th Amendment was ratified in June 1804, early enough to allow separate votes for President and Vice President in the Electoral College of 1804. Perhaps the closest metaphor to at least the formal situation before 1804 would not be equine or canine running mates pulling the same sleigh or wagon, but a nation's human runners in an Olympic event: they compete against each other for gold and silver at the same time they compete together against every other nation's runners. Similarly, Democratic-Republicans were campaigning in 1800 for both Burr and Jefferson to receive the most Electoral Votes. ¶ Of course, the framers of the Constitution in 1787 wrote Article II on the assumption (or feigned assumption) that political parties, or "factions", would not be a factor, certainly not one to be encouraged (see The The Federalist Numbers 9 and 10) while the Electors would exercise some degree of independent judgement based on acquaintance with the candidates, their records and their reputations. The one who received the second-highest number of Electoral votes seemed be most likely be the best fit for Vice President.—— Shakescene (talk) 03:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]