Running Mates
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 18, 2024, 10:14:46 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2004 U.S. Presidential Election
  Running Mates
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5
Author Topic: Running Mates  (Read 15482 times)
HoopsCubs
Rookie
**
Posts: 188


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: January 22, 2004, 06:37:51 PM »

I'm new to this forum as a poster, but have been reading the stuff here for quite some time.  It's all good!

I wanted to find out from you what your predictions are in terms of possible  running mates for Kerry, Clark, Edwards and Dean.

If Kerry is the candidate, does anyone think he'll pick Senator John Breaux from Louisiana as his running mate?    My understanding is that Breaux is not seeking re-election for Senate, but remains enormously popular in Louisiana.  Is he the right guy to bring 1-2 Southern states back into the Democrats' column (Arkansas and/or Louisiana)?

Per my electoral calculations, if Kerry can win the Gore states minus Minnesota (which I think has swung to the right), but can pick up Arizona or Nevada, West Virginia or New Hampshire and Arkansas and Louisiana, then he can win the presidency.   It's very tough, but do-able.

Thanks for your feedback,
HoopsCubs
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,767


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: January 22, 2004, 06:50:51 PM »

Welcome! I am not sure about running mates though. I think whoever gets nominated should focus on the steel states: PA, OH and WV. That's the key to the election. Then comes the rest of the mid-west and some Southern states that lean Dem.
Logged
HoopsCubs
Rookie
**
Posts: 188


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: January 22, 2004, 06:58:04 PM »

Welcome! I am not sure about running mates though. I think whoever gets nominated should focus on the steel states: PA, OH and WV. That's the key to the election. Then comes the rest of the mid-west and some Southern states that lean Dem.

Thank you for the welcome.  I can see PA and WV voting for a  Democrat in 2004.  After all, Gore won PA in 2000 (thanks to heavy voter turnout from Philly inner city), and Clinton won WV with a majority vote in 1996, so it's very possible.  OH looks very tough to me.  Sure, they have been hit hardest with the loss of jobs, and several counties tend to be trending Democratic.  Still, I think Bush wins Ohio.  I hope I am wrong.  I think the Dems need to look very closely at AZ and NV - AZ electing a female for governor in 2002 is an interesting sign;  also, Gore came very close in NV - a better voter turnout in Clark county could get it done.  Also, let's not forget that Clinton won Louisiana with a majority vote in 1996.  The right ticket and the right message could get it done.  Aren't both of their senators and their governor Democrats?

With best regards,
HoopsCubs
   
Logged
jravnsbo
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,888


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: January 22, 2004, 06:59:25 PM »

Welcome!

Hard to tell who will be VP until Nominee is picked.  Some like Sabato don't think Breaux would appeal outside of LA.  Just not known well enough.

GRaham of FL wants it badly.  Then you have to look at Edwards and Clark ( but they have both said no already-we'll see)  Plus now some are mentioning Gephardt.


I'm new to this forum as a poster, but have been reading the stuff here for quite some time.  It's all good!

I wanted to find out from you what your predictions are in terms of possible  running mates for Kerry, Clark, Edwards and Dean.

If Kerry is the candidate, does anyone think he'll pick Senator John Breaux from Louisiana as his running mate?    My understanding is that Breaux is not seeking re-election for Senate, but remains enormously popular in Louisiana.  Is he the right guy to bring 1-2 Southern states back into the Democrats' column (Arkansas and/or Louisiana)?

Per my electoral calculations, if Kerry can win the Gore states minus Minnesota (which I think has swung to the right), but can pick up Arizona or Nevada, West Virginia or New Hampshire and Arkansas and Louisiana, then he can win the presidency.   It's very tough, but do-able.

Thanks for your feedback,
HoopsCubs

Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,767


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: January 22, 2004, 07:00:22 PM »

Welcome! I am not sure about running mates though. I think whoever gets nominated should focus on the steel states: PA, OH and WV. That's the key to the election. Then comes the rest of the mid-west and some Southern states that lean Dem.

Thank you for the welcome.  I can see PA and WV voting for a  Democrat in 2004.  After all, Gore won PA in 2000 (thanks to heavy voter turnout from Philly inner city), and Clinton won WV with a majority vote in 1996, so it's very possible.  OH looks very tough to me.  Sure, they have been hit hardest with the loss of jobs, and several counties tend to be trending Democratic.  Still, I think Bush wins Ohio.  I hope I am wrong.  I think the Dems need to look very closely at AZ and NV - AZ electing a female for governor in 2002 is an interesting sign;  also, Gore came very close in NV - a better voter turnout in Clark county could get it done.  Also, let's not forget that Clinton won Louisiana with a majority vote in 1996.  The right ticket and the right message could get it done.  Aren't both of their senators and their governor Democrats?

With best regards,
HoopsCubs
   

I think it will be a really tough race for the Dems and they have to gain 10 EVs from Gore's result. I see that being done easiest by focusing on the steel states. Ohio was fairöy close in 2000, so it's not impossible and they were hurt by economy, as you say. But it could be done in many different ways of course.
Logged
jravnsbo
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,888


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: January 22, 2004, 07:06:00 PM »

LA - yes all Dem but all Conservative
to moderate ones.  as is much of the south.

AZ--well Mccain is up for reelectiona nd already well on board to campaign for Bush.

NV- been trending GOP.  Gov won in a landslide in 2002, and won the new House seat there





Welcome! I am not sure about running mates though. I think whoever gets nominated should focus on the steel states: PA, OH and WV. That's the key to the election. Then comes the rest of the mid-west and some Southern states that lean Dem.

Thank you for the welcome.  I can see PA and WV voting for a  Democrat in 2004.  After all, Gore won PA in 2000 (thanks to heavy voter turnout from Philly inner city), and Clinton won WV with a majority vote in 1996, so it's very possible.  OH looks very tough to me.  Sure, they have been hit hardest with the loss of jobs, and several counties tend to be trending Democratic.  Still, I think Bush wins Ohio.  I hope I am wrong.  I think the Dems need to look very closely at AZ and NV - AZ electing a female for governor in 2002 is an interesting sign;  also, Gore came very close in NV - a better voter turnout in Clark county could get it done.  Also, let's not forget that Clinton won Louisiana with a majority vote in 1996.  The right ticket and the right message could get it done.  Aren't both of their senators and their governor Democrats?

With best regards,
HoopsCubs
   
Logged
Demrepdan
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,305


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: January 22, 2004, 07:18:28 PM »
« Edited: January 23, 2004, 12:34:34 AM by Demrepdan »

I'm new to this forum as a poster, but have been reading the stuff here for quite some time.  It's all good!



Welcome to the forums! I am OVER JOYED and ECSTATIC that there is now another member of the forum from the great state of Illinois. Welcome!

P.S. Since you're new here I must tell you....I'm not a true Republican...not 100% anyway. I'm a Democrat running for Vice President as a Republican...under the fantasy election. With the ticket balanced the way it is....Supersoulty and I are bound to win.
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: January 22, 2004, 07:40:35 PM »

Kerry and Dean running mates include Edwards and Feingold.  Edwards running mates could be a midwesterner, or a richardson.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: January 22, 2004, 10:25:37 PM »

This is the way I see it:



Kerry/Edwards- the natural ticket if Kerry and Edwards finish 1st and 2nd respectivly

Edwards/Gepardt- if Edwards wins, forget Kerry, this is, I believe the most dangerous ticket for Bush to take-on, Edwards from the south, Gepardt from the mid-west

Clark/Gramm- heavy military and heavy south, Gramm is unpopular in Florida at the moment, however, and I think that as time goes on, more people will begin to realize how bad a candidate Clark is

Dean/Richardson- the new-Democrats take on the GOP, Dean seeks support in the southwest and so picks Richardson, also, Dean will need to pick an outsider, because he has alianated ALL of the other presidential candidates
Logged
HoopsCubs
Rookie
**
Posts: 188


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: January 23, 2004, 12:06:45 AM »

This is the way I see it:



Kerry/Edwards- the natural ticket if Kerry and Edwards finish 1st and 2nd respectivly

Edwards/Gepardt- if Edwards wins, forget Kerry, this is, I believe the most dangerous ticket for Bush to take-on, Edwards from the south, Gepardt from the mid-west

Clark/Gramm- heavy military and heavy south, Gramm is unpopular in Florida at the moment, however, and I think that as time goes on, more people will begin to realize how bad a candidate Clark is

Dean/Richardson- the new-Democrats take on the GOP, Dean seeks support in the southwest and so picks Richardson, also, Dean will need to pick an outsider, because he has alianated ALL of the other presidential candidates

I think Kerry/Edwards could give Bush/Cheney fits, and perhaps even eke out a victory if a swing state or two goes their way.  Kerry's foreign policy and domestic experience (plus a decorated war vet) and Edward's youth, charisma and common touch could net the Democrats Ohio, West Virginia, Arkansas, Arizona, Nevada, New Hampshire and Florida, all swing states, all states hat Gore lost.  The math is pretty simple.  Let's say Kerry/Edwards win every state that Gore won except for Minnesota and Iowa (I think both of these states have a better than 50% chance of going to Bush in 2004).  That would give them 243 electoral votes.   Winning Florida (27) would give them 270.  Winning Ohio (20) and Arizona (10) would give them 273.  
 

While Edwards/Gephardt would have the south and midwest thing going, Bush/Cheney will pummle them on lack of national security and foreign policy experience.   What made Bush/Cheney a decent ticket in 2000 was a governor (executive experience) and a cabinet member from a previous administration.  Clinton and Gore gave us a governor and senator with war experience.  Edwards and Gephardt would lose.

I don't consider Dean or Clark as electable.  Dean because he would lose several states that Gore won (Illinois and Michigan for starters) and Clark, because he is just not ready.

As one poster pointed out in another thread, Ohio and Missouri may be the key states.

Hoops
Logged
MAS117
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,206
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: January 23, 2004, 12:17:41 AM »

i love the idea of the John/John ticket
Logged
jravnsbo
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,888


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: January 23, 2004, 12:33:32 AM »

Oh me too!  A Massachussets liberal with a rcord that is close to Ted Kennedy's (see below) and an inexperienced trial lawyer.  


i love the idea of the John/John ticket


Kerry-Kennedy Ties Not Just Geographic

WASHINGTON — Sen. John Kerry may stress a centrist stance while trying to woo primary voters on the campaign trail, but his voting record resembles that of one of the most liberal lawmakers in the Senate — chief backer and Massachusetts' Democratic dean, Edward Kennedy.

"He's a dyed-in-the-wool liberal. He's pretty much textbook, as liberal as you can get," said Tripp Baird, director of Senate relations for the conservative Heritage Foundation. "I don't care how you slice and dice his voting record, there is no way he is going to be able to avoid it."

Kerry, 63, has enjoyed the active support of Kennedy, 71, on the recent campaign trail, particularly in Iowa, where Kennedy lost his own caucus bid for president 23 years ago. Kerry won Monday's caucuses with 38 percent of the vote.

But Kennedy still throws around considerable political muscle, and helped with the final thrust on Kerry's campaign, rallying audiences on Sunday on Kerry's behalf during stops in Des Moines, Waterloo and Iowa City. He then introduced Kerry as the next president during Kerry's Iowa victory speech on Monday night.

Aside from sharing the same zip code, the two men both have strong liberal records, especially when it comes to domestic issues like taxes, the death penalty, the environment, abortion and gay rights.

Kerry's ratings with conservative and liberal organizations do not radically differ from the other senators in the race, John Edwards of North Carolina and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. But according to the National Journal scorecard, Kennedy and Kerry vote decidedly more liberal on social issues, being weighed as 82 percent liberal in 2002 compared to Lieberman with 52 percent and Edwards with 56 percent.

But political observers say to inextricably link the two men is to ignore the differences in the two records. Where their votes might fall on the same side of the partisan line, Kerry's positions have often been less far-left than Kennedy's, especially on trade and foreign policy.

"[Kerry] has been a free trader, he's generally supported trade expansion. He's been a fiscal disciplinarian and he's supported some really tough education reforms," said Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, the think tank of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council.

"In a lot of ways they are going to have similar records as all Democrats have similar records," Marshall said. "But, I would say that, in general, Kerry has shown a centrist and independent instinct and has not been as closely identified with the constellation of special interests groups that work with so many Democrats on the Hill."

The most striking difference, perhaps, is the senators' positions on the war in Iraq — Kennedy voted against the resolution authorizing the war and Kerry supported it. His pro-war position has forced Kerry to spend much of the primary campaign season explaining why he approved the resolution and criticizing President Bush for not getting the support of the United Nations before heading into battle.

On taxes, both Kerry and Kennedy voted against the Bush tax cuts, but while Kennedy has talked of repealing all of them, Kerry has made maintaining cuts for the middle class a central theme. Both senators have no great standing with taxpayers' organizations, however.

"They're pretty much two peas in a pod when it comes to spending," said David Keating, executive director of the conservative Club for Growth. "If you like Ted Kennedy, you will like John Kerry on spending."

Keating rebuts arguments that Kerry is a fiscal disciplinarian, venturing to say that "Kerry is leading the pack" as a "fiscal liberalist" even more so than Kennedy, who has been in office since 1962.

The National Journal reports that Kerry voted liberal 95 percent of the time on economic issues in 2002, while Kennedy voted liberal 85 percent in the same period. Meanwhile, the National Taxpayer Union gave Kerry an 18 percent rating in 2002, slightly better than its rating of 13 percent for Kennedy.

Both Kerry and Kennedy voted against confirming their former colleague, Sen. John Ashcroft, as Bush's attorney general. In the 107th Congress, they both voted against barring gays from leading Boy Scout (search) troops and voted for allowing abortions in overseas military hospitals. They both voted against drilling for oil in the Alaskan Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The Almanac of American Politics says Kerry, a Yale University graduate and lawyer, came to office in 1984 with "the reputation of a strong liberal." He first made a name for himself in 1971 when he returned from the Vietnam War a decorated Navy officer and testified in Senate hearings against U.S war policy and what he described as rampant war crimes committed by U.S. soldiers in Vietnam.

Liberal groups have awarded positive marks for the two senators. In 2002, the Americans for Democratic Action gave Kennedy and Kerry grades of 100 percent and 85 percent, respectively. The American Civil Liberties Union gave both men a rating of 60, and the League of Conservation Voters gave Kerry a 94 percent rating, and Kennedy 82 percent, in the same period.

Both men are Catholics, but received low marks from the Catholic Family Organization based on their recent votes regarding abortion. Both voted against the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban of 2003 and for failed measures supporting access to the so-called "morning after" abortion pill in the last three years.

Foreign policy and trade are the two issues where the senators differ the most. While Kennedy has been more wary about expanding trade agreements, Kerry has been a supporter. This accounts in part for the higher ratings Kerry has received over the years from the pro-business U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Kerry has also been more active on defense issues throughout his nearly 20 years in office, say analysts.

"Senator Kerry has a lot of evidence at hand to combat this barrage if criticism that he is a Kennedy clone," said Marshall. "They have different focuses and they have different approaches and they are from different generations."

Democrats acknowledge that Kerry may need to start distinguishing himself from Kennedy and Massachusetts' liberal reputation as the campaign moves out of New Hampshire after Tuesday's primary and into the more conservative Southern and Midwestern states.

Simon Rosenberg, president of the centrist New Democrat Network, said that won't be difficult, because he's a different man.

"What's going to matter most is what [the candidates] are for, not where they're from," Rosenberg said. "And no matter how you cut it, he [Kerry] is clearly a moderate centrist."

Not so, said Baird. "He could be cast as a limousine liberal over and over again and it would fit every time."
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: January 23, 2004, 11:55:53 AM »

I don't think Edwards as running mate would mean much.  As the presidential candidate he might swing a state or two Clinton style, but I think people vote for the top of the ticket, and Kerry is not going to sell well in any of the states the Dems need to pick up.  

HoopsCubs above suggested Breaux - now he would be a good VP candidate.  I think all that a VP can reliably do is carry his home state for the Pres. candidate, assuming he's a very popular local figure.  Breaux could do this - I can't imagine any other way Louisiana would go Dem.  A converse example would be Gephart as VP in a Kerry/Geppy ticket - he wouldn't deliver MO as he's an unpopular figure statewide, outside his congressional district.

Edwards couldn't even turn North Carolina.  If a Kerry/Breaux ticket carried every state Gore carried plus LA, they'd win.  Of course thank goodness I doubt Breaux would have anything to do with such a scheme.
Logged
jravnsbo
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,888


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: January 23, 2004, 11:59:12 AM »

good anlaysis, LA only has 9 EV, so plus gore states makes it a 269-269 tie
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: January 23, 2004, 12:01:52 PM »

good anlaysis, LA only has 9 EV, so plus gore states makes it a 269-269 tie

Oh I am forgetting about the changes in the EC since 2000!  Well nevermind Breaux then.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,767


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: January 23, 2004, 01:06:28 PM »

i love the idea of the John/John ticket

"Forum-troll-John"? Smiley
Logged
NorthernDog
Rookie
**
Posts: 166


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: January 23, 2004, 01:25:11 PM »

Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) would add balance since he's more moderate.  IN almost always votes Republican though.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: January 23, 2004, 01:51:28 PM »

This is the way I see it:



Kerry/Edwards- the natural ticket if Kerry and Edwards finish 1st and 2nd respectivly

Edwards/Gepardt- if Edwards wins, forget Kerry, this is, I believe the most dangerous ticket for Bush to take-on, Edwards from the south, Gepardt from the mid-west

Clark/Gramm- heavy military and heavy south, Gramm is unpopular in Florida at the moment, however, and I think that as time goes on, more people will begin to realize how bad a candidate Clark is

Dean/Richardson- the new-Democrats take on the GOP, Dean seeks support in the southwest and so picks Richardson, also, Dean will need to pick an outsider, because he has alianated ALL of the other presidential candidates

I think Kerry/Edwards could give Bush/Cheney fits, and perhaps even eke out a victory if a swing state or two goes their way.  Kerry's foreign policy and domestic experience (plus a decorated war vet) and Edward's youth, charisma and common touch could net the Democrats Ohio, West Virginia, Arkansas, Arizona, Nevada, New Hampshire and Florida, all swing states, all states hat Gore lost.  The math is pretty simple.  Let's say Kerry/Edwards win every state that Gore won except for Minnesota and Iowa (I think both of these states have a better than 50% chance of going to Bush in 2004).  That would give them 243 electoral votes.   Winning Florida (27) would give them 270.  Winning Ohio (20) and Arizona (10) would give them 273.  
 

While Edwards/Gephardt would have the south and midwest thing going, Bush/Cheney will pummle them on lack of national security and foreign policy experience.   What made Bush/Cheney a decent ticket in 2000 was a governor (executive experience) and a cabinet member from a previous administration.  Clinton and Gore gave us a governor and senator with war experience.  Edwards and Gephardt would lose.

I don't consider Dean or Clark as electable.  Dean because he would lose several states that Gore won (Illinois and Michigan for starters) and Clark, because he is just not ready.

As one poster pointed out in another thread, Ohio and Missouri may be the key states.

Hoops


I don't think that any ticket with a New England liberal at the top can win the election.  That means Kerry, Liebermann or Dean.  None of them can win if they are the top of the top of the ticket.  That's why I think that Edwards is the only one who has a chance of defeating Bush.  Also, the Dems need to prove that they are an AMERICAN party, not just the party of the Northeast and Pacific West.
Logged
HoopsCubs
Rookie
**
Posts: 188


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: January 23, 2004, 02:06:08 PM »

You're probably right Supersoulty.  A northeast Liberal heading up the ticket is typically not the way to go.  But 2004 seems different to me.  Bush has been such a polarizing President that I feel there is an angle or opportunity for even Kerry to sneak in to a victory.  Slim chance, of course, but as a Democrat, I have to believe there is a way.

HoopsCubs  
Logged
jravnsbo
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,888


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: January 23, 2004, 02:16:54 PM »

Bush's approval rating is around 58-60%.  Whch means a number of independants like him too.  Plus recent polls I've seen even 20% of Democrats would vote for Bush.




You're probably right Supersoulty.  A northeast Liberal heading up the ticket is typically not the way to go.  But 2004 seems different to me.  Bush has been such a polarizing President that I feel there is an angle or opportunity for even Kerry to sneak in to a victory.  Slim chance, of course, but as a Democrat, I have to believe there is a way.

HoopsCubs  
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,767


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: January 23, 2004, 03:17:52 PM »

This is the way I see it:



Kerry/Edwards- the natural ticket if Kerry and Edwards finish 1st and 2nd respectivly

Edwards/Gepardt- if Edwards wins, forget Kerry, this is, I believe the most dangerous ticket for Bush to take-on, Edwards from the south, Gepardt from the mid-west

Clark/Gramm- heavy military and heavy south, Gramm is unpopular in Florida at the moment, however, and I think that as time goes on, more people will begin to realize how bad a candidate Clark is

Dean/Richardson- the new-Democrats take on the GOP, Dean seeks support in the southwest and so picks Richardson, also, Dean will need to pick an outsider, because he has alianated ALL of the other presidential candidates

I think Kerry/Edwards could give Bush/Cheney fits, and perhaps even eke out a victory if a swing state or two goes their way.  Kerry's foreign policy and domestic experience (plus a decorated war vet) and Edward's youth, charisma and common touch could net the Democrats Ohio, West Virginia, Arkansas, Arizona, Nevada, New Hampshire and Florida, all swing states, all states hat Gore lost.  The math is pretty simple.  Let's say Kerry/Edwards win every state that Gore won except for Minnesota and Iowa (I think both of these states have a better than 50% chance of going to Bush in 2004).  That would give them 243 electoral votes.   Winning Florida (27) would give them 270.  Winning Ohio (20) and Arizona (10) would give them 273.  
 

While Edwards/Gephardt would have the south and midwest thing going, Bush/Cheney will pummle them on lack of national security and foreign policy experience.   What made Bush/Cheney a decent ticket in 2000 was a governor (executive experience) and a cabinet member from a previous administration.  Clinton and Gore gave us a governor and senator with war experience.  Edwards and Gephardt would lose.

I don't consider Dean or Clark as electable.  Dean because he would lose several states that Gore won (Illinois and Michigan for starters) and Clark, because he is just not ready.

As one poster pointed out in another thread, Ohio and Missouri may be the key states.

Hoops


I don't think that any ticket with a New England liberal at the top can win the election.  That means Kerry, Liebermann or Dean.  None of them can win if they are the top of the top of the ticket.  That's why I think that Edwards is the only one who has a chance of defeating Bush.  Also, the Dems need to prove that they are an AMERICAN party, not just the party of the Northeast and Pacific West.

You call Lieberman a "northeaterns liberal"? Northeastern, yeah, but liberal???
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: January 23, 2004, 03:20:34 PM »

Bush's approval rating is around 58-60%.  Whch means a number of independants like him too.  Plus recent polls I've seen even 20% of Democrats would vote for Bush.
That was against Dean, that wouldn't happen against edwards, or even Kerry for that matter.
Logged
jravnsbo
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,888


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: January 23, 2004, 03:27:37 PM »

well I don't see edwards being the nominee, maybe VP that is wide open.  Kerry is a liberal just like Ted Kennedy and Bush will do very well vs him among independants.

Bush's approval rating is around 58-60%.  Whch means a number of independants like him too.  Plus recent polls I've seen even 20% of Democrats would vote for Bush.
That was against Dean, that wouldn't happen against edwards, or even Kerry for that matter.
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: January 23, 2004, 03:28:56 PM »

well I don't see edwards being the nominee, maybe VP that is wide open.  Kerry is a liberal just like Ted Kennedy and Bush will do very well vs him among independants.

Bush's approval rating is around 58-60%.  Whch means a number of independants like him too.  Plus recent polls I've seen even 20% of Democrats would vote for Bush.
That was against Dean, that wouldn't happen against edwards, or even Kerry for that matter.
Kerry would do better than ted Kennedy.
Logged
jravnsbo
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,888


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: January 23, 2004, 03:30:25 PM »

john kerry is Ted Kennedy when you look at their voting records.

well I don't see edwards being the nominee, maybe VP that is wide open.  Kerry is a liberal just like Ted Kennedy and Bush will do very well vs him among independants.

Bush's approval rating is around 58-60%.  Whch means a number of independants like him too.  Plus recent polls I've seen even 20% of Democrats would vote for Bush.
That was against Dean, that wouldn't happen against edwards, or even Kerry for that matter.
Kerry would do better than ted Kennedy.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.054 seconds with 12 queries.