Talk Elections

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

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
   

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 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.

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 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.

Kerry and Dean running mates include Edwards and Feingold.  Edwards running mates could be a midwesterner, or a richardson.

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 love the idea of the John/John ticket

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




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."

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.

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.

"Forum-troll-John"? :)

Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) would add balance since he's more moderate.  IN almost always votes Republican though.

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'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  

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

That was against Dean, that wouldn't happen against edwards, or even Kerry for that matter.

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.

Kerry would do better than ted Kennedy.

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

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

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.

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.

Kerry prides himself on being MORE LIBERAL than Ted Kennedy.

no he doesn't.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Ditto.

Er... Tritto?

Um... ditto2?

Quirtto? :)

Seriously, I agree as well.

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.

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 :)

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

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

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... :(

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?

Forcing Bush to spend SOME resources in the South would be helpful to the Democrats no doubt about it.  However, with Kerry at the top of the ticket it's obvious that the Dems have turned their strategy towards winning with zero EVs from the South.  They will have to pry Ohio loose from Bush.  That represents their best hope even though it's still up hill.

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.

The major news services usually poll 1000, the minor ones sink as low as 300.  But more people are surveyed as we get closer to election day.

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.

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.

Hate to burst your bubble, but Dean's done.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Edwards would be the best choice as vice president candidate for anybody else democratic nominee will be. But where we can find VP for Edwards himself?

I think that good VP should be younger than president. Lieberman was bad choice and Cheney is awful. (I think Cheney can really lessen Bush's possibility. He can maybe please some elder people, but among younger voters he can hurt Bush much. Also Cheney is ultra-conservative who doesn't make easier Bush's plan to pretend moderate conservative)

In case of young or youthful president candidate like Edwards it could be hard to find fit running mate.

What you would say senator Evan Bayh of Indiana? He is youthfull and moderate. But I'm not sure his "geographical profit". Edwards should probably have to fight for North Caroline. Winning in Indiana with Bayh wouldn't be easy also.

Unfortunately I will have to disagree there. Cheney was an inspired choice for Bush in 2000, since Cheney's experience immediately cancelled out any perceived inexperience on GWB's behalf. (That said, I do agree with your description of Cheney as an ultra-conservative.)

Similarly, should Edwards win the nomination he is inevitably going to face charges of inexperience, and would therefore do well to choose someone older. My money's on Graham.

You think Edwards would choose another southerner? Maybe it is a good strategy...forcing the Republicans to pour money into LA, ARK, TN, NC, and FLA is big.

No No Graham! I remembered that he demanded to attack to Syria in last spring after Iraq War. He doesn't sound very smart person.

But it was good point that there is need to experience about Edwards running mate.

Well I saw Grham int he last few days syaing he thought the WMDs were in Syria again.  Will be hard for Dems to argue about that with Graham saying their in Syria.

Evan Byah is up for reelection this year guys and so doubtful he would take VP, I see him running in 2008.

The weapons are in the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon.  Anyway about Byah, do we really want another senator for Indiana as vice-president?  Did we learn ur lesson the first time?

Is it potatoe or potato?

another good one


It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it."

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.

Republican self-criticism?

Good. Self-criticism is always necessary and useful.

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

Depends on your definition. If you mean economically dependent, or relies on military protection, sure. But if you mean all the nation's decisions on everything are made in another capital, ie old Eastern Europe, there's just one, and that's Lebanon. Even Laos is no longer in the Vietnamese orbit.

Bhutan?

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.

Sure, Monaco's like the ultimate client state to France, or San Marino to Italy, Lichtenstein to Switz., Marshall islands to USA. But puppets is something completely different.

Belarus?

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.

You don't mean our John, the forum troll, right?

He want's to run a puppet state but can't... ironic, eh?

BTW an opposition candidate at the last "election" in Belarus "vanished" a couple of months back...

They do similer stuff in the Ukraine...

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.

i like the Kerry / Edwards ticket

Same here. Kerry/Edwards looks like the best case scenario. :D

Edwards/Kerry is better.

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... :(

Keep that dream alive, I guess.  Dreams are cheaper than Prozac, Zoloft, etc.

:)

There is still hope.  Oklahoma, Missouri, and South Carolina full of hope.

Yes... but in Moldova they are officially Communist (ie; Marxist-Leninist), and they don't appear to have cracked down on opposition parties.
They won 50% of the vote in the last Parliamentary election (note to U.S members: in a multi-party system 50% is an extremly high % of the vote)

Edwards Rejects a Kerry-Edwards Ticket    
10 minutes ago  

By ROSS SNEYD, Associated Press Writer

MERRIMACK, N.H. - Presidential candidate John Edwards (news - web sites) on Wednesday rejected any notion of sharing the Democratic ticket with front-running rival John Kerry (news - web sites) — unless he is at the top.


AP Photo


Reuters  
 Slideshow: John Edwards

  Edwards Looks Ahead After N.H. Outcome
(AP Video)
 


 Latest headlines:
· Edwards Rejects a Kerry-Edwards Ticket
AP - 10 minutes ago
 
· Delegates Won in N.H. Democratic Primary
AP - 16 minutes ago
 
· Unofficial N.H. Democrat Primary Returns
AP - 17 minutes ago
 

Election 2004

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Election Results:
N.H. Primary
 
 

   

Asked on NBC's "Today" show if he would accept second place on the Democratic slate to face President Bush (news - web sites) in the fall election, Edwards said: "I think you've got the order reversed. I intend to be the nominee."


Edwards said he would not be willing to be No. 2. "No, no. Final. I don't want to be vice president. I'm running for president," he said.


Edwards declared his fourth-place finish in New Hampshire's primary just what he needed as he headed into his native South and beyond. He climbed from low in the pre-primary polls to finish just behind retired Gen. Wesley Clark (news - web sites), who placed third. Clark and Edwards both had 12 percent of the vote, with Clark earning more than 800 votes over Edwards.


"We've got a lot of energy and momentum going right now. My job is to keep it going," he said Wednesday.


Kerry won New Hampshire with 39 percent of the vote, and Howard Dean (news - web sites) came in second with 26 percent. Joe Lieberman (news - web sites) trailed Clark and Edwards in fifth place with 9 percent.


"In New Hampshire 10 days ago we were 20 points behind General Clark and look at what we've done," Edwards told cheering supporters Tuesday night. "And now we're going to take this energy and momentum we saw in Iowa and this energy and momentum we saw in New Hampshire and we're going to take it right through February 3rd."


The stakes are all on South Carolina next week for Edwards. He says he must win the state where he was born and where a recent poll showed him with a slight lead. He dismisses any discussions about what his future holds if he doesn't carry South Carolina.


But he faces an opponent who also lays claim to being the candidate from the South, Arkansas' Clark. Kerry also will be competing in South Carolina.


Despite spending a good part of the past year campaigning in New Hampshire and holding more than 100 town hall meetings, Edwards could not overcome the built-in advantages of the New Englanders.


"They're from right next door," Edwards said of Kerry and Dean. "They're expected to do that."


His tight race with Clark could portend another close contest next week. Besides South Carolina, the Edwards campaign also wants to do well in Oklahoma and possibly New Mexico and Missouri. TV ads are airing in South Carolina, Oklahoma and New Mexico. Edwards said contributions continued to flow into his campaign based on his Iowa finish.


Edwards said he would work hard in the coming week but would not forecast his prospects. "Beyond South Carolina I don't want to make any predictions, but I want to do well," he said.


Edwards headed to the airport for a flight to South Carolina immediately after speaking to supporters in New Hampshire. He planned to spend part of Wednesday campaigning in South Carolina, as well as in Oklahoma and Missouri, a big prize next week that became competitive after favorite son Rep. Dick Gephardt (news - web sites) dropped out after the Iowa caucuses.

Yeah, do you buy that? No one will make an issue of this once he is chosen.

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...

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.  

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 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

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.