Running Mates

[Gustaf]

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.

[Gustaf]

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.

[Gustaf]

i love the idea of the John/John ticket

"Forum-troll-John"?

[Gustaf]

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???

[Gustaf]

Er... Tritto?

Um... ditto2?

Quirtto?

Seriously, I agree as well.

[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...

[Gustaf]

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.

Yes, I agree with all of that. Also, if Edwards can force Bush to campaign in the South, that could be good too.

Btw, I just saw on a Swedish page that a Newseek poll published today gives Kerry a victory over Bush, 49-46. Anyone else see this?

[Gustaf]

I did indeed see that poll.  A poll taken at the same time by Opinion Dynamics showed Bush leading Kerry 49 - 42 so who knows.  Thing is, these polls right now are being taken while only a relatively small portion of the electorate is being tuned in.  They are very fluid and appear to fluctuate with whoever has a good week and Kerry has had a very good week.

Well Faux's poll has Bush doing better than he is the Newsweek poll...big surprise...but polls mean less than nothing at this point.  the only interesting stat in the NEwsweek poll is that 52% don't want to see Bush re-elected in 2004.  Only 1006 were sampled, so it doesn't matter.

How many people are usually sampled? In Sweden it's 1000...

Isn't it most likely that, disregarding all other factors, Bush will lose some as we approach election, since the eventual nominee will get the spotlight, undecideds go against the incumbant, the challenger's name recognition increases, etc?

I think Kerry being within 7% is surprisingly good, not long ago all Dems were double digits behind.

Agcat, I agree that Ohio is a key state. If the Dems can win it, they have a chance. They should go for the steel states. If the Dem can win Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia they have a good chance of winning the election.

[Gustaf]

Kinda stupid to take 106; then the percentages just get a little of . . . why not 100 or 150?

What?

It seems like he think you wrote 106 and not 1006 like you actually did.

[Gustaf]

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

Dean will win in Michigan and Arizona I think.  That maybe enough to keep him in it.  Not to mention that Sharpton will start to pick-up votes in the south.

Yeah, of course he will win Arizona. Don't let the fact that he lost half his support there in one week and is currently in 3rd place there disturb that prediction....

[Gustaf]

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

Dean will win in Michigan and Arizona I think.  That maybe enough to keep him in it.  Not to mention that Sharpton will start to pick-up votes in the south.

Yeah, of course he will win Arizona. Don't let the fact that he lost half his support there in one week and is currently in 3rd place there disturb that prediction....

I think that Dean will gain a bit more steam after New Hampshire.  Remember, Dean is the only candidate who has a 50 state organization in place and he has the most important thing: money.

Why would Dean gain steam in New Hampshire, if he does badly he will just continue to fall.

[Gustaf]

Dean is already behind Kerry in all Feb 3rd states, if he finishes behind Kerry in New Hampshire, he wont gain on Kerry. Dean is looking really done for. I have trouble seeing anyone beating Kerry, the way things are going right now.

a strong 2d would look like a win for Dean afte rthe beating he has taken in the press and early week polls.

Clark is the one in freefall.

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

Dean will win in Michigan and Arizona I think.  That maybe enough to keep him in it.  Not to mention that Sharpton will start to pick-up votes in the south.

Yeah, of course he will win Arizona. Don't let the fact that he lost half his support there in one week and is currently in 3rd place there disturb that prediction....

I think that Dean will gain a bit more steam after New Hampshire.  Remember, Dean is the only candidate who has a 50 state organization in place and he has the most important thing: money.

Why would Dean gain steam in New Hampshire, if he does badly he will just continue to fall.

[Gustaf]

Edwards has to win in SC, so he will focus there. He will be the only one who has something seriously at stake, Kerry will win effortlessly in a number of places after hw wins NH, and Dean and Clark will be pretty dead anyway.

It will be interesting to see where they all go and campaign.  keryy has spent $0 on feb 3 states and is only doing well in AZ and SC.

It will take all the candidates a lot of money on Feb 3.  They say $2 million in Missouri.

Just hard for them all to campaign in 7 states ina week.

Dean is already behind Kerry in all Feb 3rd states, if he finishes behind Kerry in New Hampshire, he wont gain on Kerry. Dean is looking really done for. I have trouble seeing anyone beating Kerry, the way things are going right now.

a strong 2d would look like a win for Dean afte rthe beating he has taken in the press and early week polls.

Clark is the one in freefall.

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

Dean will win in Michigan and Arizona I think.  That maybe enough to keep him in it.  Not to mention that Sharpton will start to pick-up votes in the south.

Yeah, of course he will win Arizona. Don't let the fact that he lost half his support there in one week and is currently in 3rd place there disturb that prediction....

I think that Dean will gain a bit more steam after New Hampshire.  Remember, Dean is the only candidate who has a 50 state organization in place and he has the most important thing: money.

Why would Dean gain steam in New Hampshire, if he does badly he will just continue to fall.

[Gustaf]

Lebanon is the world's last puppet/satellite state, controlled by Syria. But which Graham said this, Lindsay or Bob? If Bob, that's big.

There are lots of satellite states in the world other than Lebanon.

[Gustaf]

Kind of isolated. They're dependent on India, and maintain close ties with them, but I wouln't call them a puppet state. Client state, yes. But I'm talking a Slovakia- '39, Hungary '56 puppet state. That's Lebanon.

I suppose you don't count really small states, like say, Monaco, the Vatican or Andorra? Or these Oceanian states I thought were pretty much controlled by the US. I think some of the old Soviet states are pretty controlled, but with your hard-line definition, I agree there wouldn't be that many around.

[Gustaf]

They're weird; Lukashenko is the one that want's t recreate the USSR, not Putin. He wants it on his terms, with him as leader and the capital in Minsk. The idea of Aleksandr Lukashenko with a major Pacific naval base is... scary... but ver unlikely. Putin has publicly rebuffed him.

Belarus is a state where oppositional journalists are murdered. Scary place, Europe's last real dictature.

[Gustaf]

Ukraine doesn't quite rise (sink, perhaps?) to that level, but there's nasty stuff going on there too. Still, they have a viable democratic opposition that should win next time, they almost did last time. Belarus is truly Europe's last real dictatorship. (I count Transcaucasian countries as Asiatic for these purposes.)

There is still hope for the Ukraine. The problem is that they will probably get an EU-brainwash in the process, but I guess I will have to accept that as the least bad of the outcomes.

[Gustaf]

Edwards/Kerry or Kerry/Edwards would give the Dems a good chance of winning
Bribe Clark and Gephardt to accept cabinet positions and it gets better.

Democrat's... don't vote for Dean!!!

BTW Re: Ukraine; a journalists headless corpse was found in the backwoods a while back...
But an alliance of liberals and communists (not every day you see that mixture) should get the bastard (Kuchma) next time...

BTW Moldova has a Democratically elected Communist government.
Which bearing in mind how poor Moldova is, is entirly understandible.

A lot of ex-Soviet countries have more or less communist goverments I think. But their democratic alternatives are often weak, and the right is fascist, so what are they supposed to do? Just like Russia I suppose...

[Gustaf]

I don't know, but we can sure throw it back in his face if he flip flops!

No, he'll just say that the situation changed a lot, etc, etc...

[Gustaf]

Well, that might be a little different, but Edwards could just say that he WAS running for president, not VP, that the thought had never really crossed his mind, but that when he got the call he thought it over carefully, consulted his family, and decided that the values he promoted in his campaign would be best served by him running for VP, and that he cannot say no to his country, servant of his people, thinks Senator kerry is a great man, etc, etc, etc...

I can see it happening, can't you?

yeah like Kerry and his evolving war stance, yeah that'll work!

still waiting for the reporters to ask him about how he justifies his NO vote on the first Gulf war when a country was invaded.  

I don't know, but we can sure throw it back in his face if he flip flops!

No, he'll just say that the situation changed a lot, etc, etc...

[Gustaf]

Yeah and everyone will believe that!  ( will look phoney like the trial lawyer he is)  Plus I WANT him on the ticket, he adds nothing electorally to it , can't pick upa  single southern state, etc etc

Well, that might be a little different, but Edwards could just say that he WAS running for president, not VP, that the thought had never really crossed his mind, but that when he got the call he thought it over carefully, consulted his family, and decided that the values he promoted in his campaign would be best served by him running for VP, and that he cannot say no to his country, servant of his people, thinks Senator kerry is a great man, etc, etc, etc...

I can see it happening, can't you?

yeah like Kerry and his evolving war stance, yeah that'll work!

still waiting for the reporters to ask him about how he justifies his NO vote on the first Gulf war when a country was invaded.  

I don't know, but we can sure throw it back in his face if he flip flops!

No, he'll just say that the situation changed a lot, etc, etc...

I do think it would be quite reasonable, not true, but I very much doubt that it would hurt him. Look at Schwarzenegger, he confirmed that he wouldn't run, and then ran anyway. It's very common for politicians to deny their intenstions and then run anyway, and it has never been a problem, as far as I know.

And I'm not sure if Edwards adds nothing, it's not only about picking up Southern states. He might make the Upper South more of a battleground, that would be good in itself.