Is running mate speculation the most annoying phase of a Presidential campaign?

[Wrecking Ball and Chain]

Good God yes. It's too bad redistricting couldn't happen around the same time so we'd have something else to talk about.

[Odysseus]

No. The worst phase is post-election night speculation on next cycle's candidates.

Are you ready for 20 poll threads about Chris Christie running in 2016?

[ChairmanSanchez]

No. The worst phase is post-election night speculation on next cycle's candidates.

Are you ready for 20 poll threads about Chris Christie running in 2016?

[Wrecking Ball and Chain]

No. The worst phase is post-election night speculation on next cycle's candidates.

Are you ready for 20 poll threads about Chris Christie running in 2016?

Well that's not technically part of the campaign, but yes there's no question that the 2016 forum will be an unviewable trainwreck for at least 2 1/2 years since its creation.

I actually kind of prefer midterm elections to Presidential ones by the way, because they allow more people to make a difference and takes the races to a wider variety of places than just two or three swing states.

[Wrecking Ball and Chain]

No. I actually find it one of the most interesting parts, myself. Personally, I find the most annoying phaseto be the candidate selection, particularly in an open year, simply for all the incessant pretentious fanboying over particular candidates.

What the hell is interesting about constant "Post maps of Romney/XXXXXXX vs. Obama/Biden" or "What if Obama drops Biden and picks XXXXXX?" polls?

[Formerly Californian Tony]

Definitely.

[WalterMitty]

rod grams.

[Big DaddyTX]

Of course. Because than I have to listen to people claim that this VP will help win a home state, and surrounding areas. Because as we know, John Edwards helped SOOO much in the south. And in 2008 when people were talking about Pawlenty being a VP candidate, how he would carry  MN, WI, IA and another hand full of states.

[Wrecking Ball and Chain]

The other thing that bugs me otherwise is it's just a right or wrong guess, there's no fun maps or anything to analyze.

[Nagas]

Of course. Because than I have to listen to people claim that this VP will help win a home state, and surrounding areas. Because as we know, John Edwards helped SOOO much in the south. And in 2008 when people were talking about Pawlenty being a VP candidate, how he would carry  MN, WI, IA and another hand full of states.

Shhh, you don't want to burst some peoples' bubbles.

[King]

Everything about Presidential campaigns is horrible but we love to spend our lives watching the car accident anyway.

[Pacific Councillor Big Wiggly Style]

Everything about Presidential campaigns is horrible but we love to spend our lives watching the car accident anyway.

This.

[perdedor]

I can agree with that. Regardless of how many Presidential elections we go through, people never seem to learn the complete irrelevance of most VP picks.

[Joe Republic]

It'd be great if we had VP primaries held concurrently with presidential ones.  Like New Hampshire used to, but meaningful and seriously contested.

Or maybe the parties could just automatically give it to the delegate runner up at the convention.

[clarence]

No- with one decision some one could go from obscurity to a major world figure overnight

[Yelnoc]

No, the most annoying phase is the candidate speculation in the two years prior to the primaries.  Or maybe the debate phase in the second half of the year before the primaries begin, I'm not sure.

[wormyguy]

It'd be great if we had VP primaries held concurrently with presidential ones.  Like New Hampshire used to, but meaningful and seriously contested.

Or maybe the parties could just automatically give it to the delegate runner up at the convention.

David Duke won the NH Democratic VP primary one year.

[A-Bob]

No, I enjoy person speculation and ranking of candidates. VP will likely be the next standard bearer and at least front-runner for the nomination if the nominee loses or eventually can't/doesn't run for re-election.