Running Mates

[© Tweed the Younger]

Ted Kennedy is a liberal and proud of it, Kerry is just a liberal.

[jravnsbo]

exactly, but as I posted, I think in this thread the comparison will be made between the 2 of them and wilbe accurate.  Plus add in Kerry being Dukakis' LT Gov and anti-death penalty stances and they all look the same.

Ted Kennedy is a liberal and proud of it, Kerry is just a liberal.

[12th Doctor]

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???

Liebermann is economically liberal.  Granted that he is far more conservative than the others, but he is still liberal when compared to the rest of the country.

[12th Doctor]

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.

Kerry prides himself on being MORE LIBERAL than Ted Kennedy.

[© Tweed the Younger]

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.

Kerry prides himself on being MORE LIBERAL than Ted Kennedy.

no he doesn't.

[Mort from NewYawk]

You call Lieberman a "northeaterns liberal"? Northeastern, yeah, but liberal???

Liebermann is economically liberal.  Granted that he is far more conservative than the others, but he is still liberal when compared to the rest of the country.

Lieberman is fiscally moderate.

He gets liberals riled because he believes that the private sector is the primary engine of economic growth, and has supported cuts in the capital gains tax.

He would repeal tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% only, and use that money to finance additional tax breaks that are of greatest concern to the middle class, e.g. elder care and retirement.

[MAS117]

lieberman has no shot in hell of winning... the only reason i would ever vote for him is becasue he is jewish

[© Tweed the Younger]

lieberman has no shot in hell of winning... the only reason i would ever vote for him is becasue he is jewish

That makes alot of sense.  Vote for somebody because of their religion.

[MAS117]

do i like lieberman, not really, but hey i got to support my fellow jews... that would be a huge spet for our regilion and for isreal if he were elected. what should have happened is he should be the first jewish vice president right now

[© Tweed the Younger]

do i like lieberman, not really, but hey i got to support my fellow jews... that would be a huge spet for our regilion and for isreal if he were elected. what should have happened is he should be the first jewish vice president right now

So you would vote for Uga the Caveman if he was Jewish?  Don't vote for somebody because of religion, it's wrong.

[12th Doctor]

do i like lieberman, not really, but hey i got to support my fellow jews... that would be a huge spet for our regilion and for isreal if he were elected. what should have happened is he should be the first jewish vice president right now

I would never vote for Kennedy, even if he is Catholic.  I wouldn't vote for anyone of my religious backround, simply because they are of my religion.  i vote for people based on the issues.

[© Tweed the Younger]

do i like lieberman, not really, but hey i got to support my fellow jews... that would be a huge spet for our regilion and for isreal if he were elected. what should have happened is he should be the first jewish vice president right now

I would never vote for Kennedy, even if he is Catholic.  I wouldn't vote for anyone of my religious backround, simply because they are of my religion.  i vote for people based on the issues.

Ditto

[MAS117]

i understand, but its different for you then me. if you havent noticed by now im a jew, and if a person like lieberman was to win that would be huge for my people. the suitation in isreal isnt getting any better and to mention me being an american jew makes me one the most hated people in the world right from the start. you wouldnt understand i guess... plus it doesnt matter lieberman is going to lose anyway someone needs to tell him hes a republican.. did i mention kerrys endorsement from walter mondale today..you all might think who cares we got murdered in the election but it so happens that he is one of the those selective superdelegates

[12th Doctor]

i understand, but its different for you then me. if you havent noticed by now im a jew, and if a person like lieberman was to win that would be huge for my people. the suitation in isreal isnt getting any better and to mention me being an american jew makes me one the most hated people in the world right from the start. you wouldnt understand i guess... plus it doesnt matter lieberman is going to lose anyway someone needs to tell him hes a republican.. did i mention kerrys endorsement from walter mondale today..you all might think who cares we got murdered in the election but it so happens that he is one of the those selective superdelegates

When you put it like that, I understand, I really do.  A very large minority of people in this country are anti-semitic whether they admit it or not and most of the nations in the UN have a clearly anti-semitic bias.  I personally admire the stregth of Israel and the Jewish people.  That's not just lip-service I really do.

[Michael Z]

I personally admire the stregth of Israel and the Jewish people.  That's not just lip-service I really do.

Ditto.

[Sibboleth]

Er... Tritto?

Um... ditto2?

[Gustaf]

Er... Tritto?

Um... ditto2?

Quirtto?

Seriously, I agree as well.

[agcatter]

Dean and Clark would be VERY entertaining.  Hey, how about Dean/Clark vs a Dan Quail/Pat Robertson ticket?  It would be the Keystone Cops vs the Keystone Cops.  Both Democrtats and Republicans would be thoroughly entertained for the months leading up the general election.  Forget who won or lost.  Both sides would be rolling in the aisles - Outstanding comedy entertainment for everyone of every political persuasion.  Enough material for Leno and Letterman to make their entire shows just one long monologue.  Heck, they wouldn't have time for any guests.

[Pictor Ignotus]

I'm a Kerry supporter, so I'm going on the assumption he'll be the nominee. The veep nom should be chosen in the summer after asking this question: Where does the nominee need help? The base or the battleground states? If there is still some need to shore up the base, I think Diane Feinstein would make the best Veep nom. She would lock up California so the ticket could spend resources elsewhere, she would lock up a majority of women which is a MUST for the Dems. Also, she's a moderate and could appeal to some independent, suburban women. She endorsed Kerry several months ago.

If the base is solid and the Dems are within the margin of error against Bush, the Veep should be either Clark or Edwards, whomever does better in the primaries in Southern states. Personally, I like Edwards more, but I'm not sure his positive, populist campaign can do a lot as a veep nom. Clark clearly can reinforce the image of Kerry as a strong commander in chief. As far as the Pres nom, I like Clark and am glad he's a Dem, but I wish he had more tenure or record being a Democrat. He seems fine on the issues but I just have lingering questions about his commitment to social and economic issues. But I want this general who is critical of the President to stay in the party, thus I think , besides Feinstein, he'd have the most to offer. Also, I think we have a shot at Arkansas and not as much at NC.

[Sibboleth]

I'm a Kerry supporter, so I'm going on the assumption he'll be the nominee. The veep nom should be chosen in the summer after asking this question: Where does the nominee need help? The base or the battleground states? If there is still some need to shore up the base, I think Diane Feinstein would make the best Veep nom. She would lock up California so the ticket could spend resources elsewhere, she would lock up a majority of women which is a MUST for the Dems. Also, she's a moderate and could appeal to some independent, suburban women. She endorsed Kerry several months ago.

If the base is solid and the Dems are within the margin of error against Bush, the Veep should be either Clark or Edwards, whomever does better in the primaries in Southern states. Personally, I like Edwards more, but I'm not sure his positive, populist campaign can do a lot as a veep nom. Clark clearly can reinforce the image of Kerry as a strong commander in chief. As far as the Pres nom, I like Clark and am glad he's a Dem, but I wish he had more tenure or record being a Democrat. He seems fine on the issues but I just have lingering questions about his commitment to social and economic issues. But I want this general who is critical of the President to stay in the party, thus I think , besides Feinstein, he'd have the most to offer. Also, I think we have a shot at Arkansas and not as much at NC.

Nice to see you back

[zorkpolitics]

Kerry will easily win NH.  Over the next few weeks Lieberman and Dean fail to win anywhere and will both proably drop out.  This clears the way for Kerry, Edwards does well in the South and woudl be a good pick for VP

[© Tweed the Younger]

I'm a Kerry supporter, so I'm going on the assumption he'll be the nominee. The veep nom should be chosen in the summer after asking this question: Where does the nominee need help? The base or the battleground states? If there is still some need to shore up the base, I think Diane Feinstein would make the best Veep nom. She would lock up California so the ticket could spend resources elsewhere, she would lock up a majority of women which is a MUST for the Dems. Also, she's a moderate and could appeal to some independent, suburban women. She endorsed Kerry several months ago.

If the base is solid and the Dems are within the margin of error against Bush, the Veep should be either Clark or Edwards, whomever does better in the primaries in Southern states. Personally, I like Edwards more, but I'm not sure his positive, populist campaign can do a lot as a veep nom. Clark clearly can reinforce the image of Kerry as a strong commander in chief. As far as the Pres nom, I like Clark and am glad he's a Dem, but I wish he had more tenure or record being a Democrat. He seems fine on the issues but I just have lingering questions about his commitment to social and economic issues. But I want this general who is critical of the President to stay in the party, thus I think , besides Feinstein, he'd have the most to offer. Also, I think we have a shot at Arkansas and not as much at NC.

The return of TCash!  Now for Brandon and JustJoe...

[agcatter]

Yeah, Clark should lock up Arkansas - especially if he barnstorms the state with his new friends - Michael Moore and George McGovern.  Bush is toast going against an all star team like that.

[Gustaf]

Yeah, Clark should lock up Arkansas - especially if he barnstorms the state with his new friends - Michael Moore and George McGovern.  Bush is toast going against an all star team like that.

Lol...very funny...no need to rub it in...

[agcatter]

Seriously, at this time, and after seeing Clark on the campaign trail, I'd say Kerry - Edwards would be a stronger ticket.   Clark has made some really stupid statements over the last month.  He'd be spending a heck of a lot of time playing defense due to his flipflops.  Plus it appears the media doesn't like him either and we know what they can do to a candidate when they want to.

No, Edwards would make a better running mate IMO.  He's not going to bring along any southern states, but he's a lot more seasoned than Clark, more polished, and much less likely to put his foot in his mouth than Clark.