Talk Elections

What does anyone think about the possibility of the Republican presidential candidate choosing a woman as his running mate? What are some possible combinations? Would the convention delegates nominate her?

Conan, you read my mind.  Just today, I was thinking about the various possibilities for VP for both parties.  I was actually considering starting a thread in which I would make the case that either or both major parties will have a woman on the ticket in '08.  There may be some voters who are resistant to the idea of a woman as president, but my guess is that, at least now, in 2006, there would be essentially no resistance to the idea of a woman as VP.  But a woman as VP could still excite some women voters who like the idea of a woman pres. in the near future.  If there are female voters who are excited about the idea of a woman pres. because of Hillary's candidacy, but Hillary still ends up failing to get the nomination, the Democratic nominee still might pick a woman as his running mate as a sort of "consolation prize".  (That sounds harsher than I'm intending it to be.)  The Republicans might also pick a woman for similar reasons.

Honestly, I think the only reason we've gone more than 20 years without a woman on a presidential ticket is because we haven't had a very deep bench of potential candidates on either side, though that may be changing, at least for the Democrats.  Every VP nominee from either party since 1972 has been a current or former member of Congress, with almost all of them having at least 10 years experience in Washington.  Senators are the most likely to be picked.  The Democrats also tend to pick running mates who are more moderate (or at least, perceived as being more moderate) than the guy at the top of the ticket.  But the majority of the Democratic women in the Senate are a bit left of the average Senate Democrat, or are at least perceived that way.  However, by 2008 at least, both Mary Landrieu and Blanche Lincoln will have served in the Senate for at least 10 years, and both of them are rather moderate.  So I think they will both be near the top of the list of potential running mates if anyone other than Hillary wins the nomination.

On the Republican side....given the current state of the GOP, I find it hard to believe the presidential nominee would pick a running mate who is pro-choice on abortion unless there was a really compelling reason to do so.  It would lead to some serious infighting in the party that could be avoided simply by picking someone else.  This reduces the chances that the Republican VP candidate will be a woman as, correct me if I'm wrong but, I believe all of the GOP women in the Senate are pro-choice except Elizabeth Dole (who is probably too old to run for VP)?

But there might be some GOP women in the House who might be a good choice....I just don't know much about too many of them to give an educated opinion.  What about Heather Wilson (if she survives reelection)?  I know very little about her, but her biography is ideal.


In any case, I will stand by my prediction that one or both parties (more likely the Democrats than the Republicans) will have a woman on their presidential ticket in '08....either in the presidential or vice presidential slot.  You can quote me on that in two years.

Well, if it's being considered, both parties will want to avoid any comparisons with Ferraro...meaning that any female VP pick will have to be immensely qualified--a long-serving Senator or Governor [or Condi], definitely not a House member.

Ferraro is now so long ago that I'm not sure that'll be much of an issue.  Our national political attention span isn't that long.

Mondale was well on his way to losing that race; Geraldine Ferraro should not be blamed for his defeat or its magnitude.

You're right, Ferraro is ancient history as the younger voters in 2008 of ages 18-24 will have been born in Reagan's second term, thus not even been born during the 1984 election (or no more than 1 year old).  Heck, even the 18-20 year olds in 2008 weren't even born during the 1988 campaign (or no more than 1 year old) and thus have only known a Bush or Clinton in the White House.  So, we'll have a great number of voters born in the late 1980s and even 1990.

Having said that, given that younger voters are more generally Democrat than Republican, then the electoral slaughter of Mondale and Ferraro will not even be considered.  Its like me (born in 1982) and Jimmy Carter's administration or the attempted Reagan assassination in 1981.

True, Geraldine Ferraro had noting to do with Mondale's disasterous defeat.  Mondale saw to that on his own very well. 

I believe Mondale knew he was going down big time, and that he wanted to leave something behind in his political legacy, part of which was the first Presidential nominee of a major party to nominate a woman for Vice President.

So he nominated Ferraro, nothing more than a token nomination, no more qualified to be Vice President than fly to the moon, nonetheless, Mondale did make history by being the first Presidential nominee of a major party to nominate a woman for Vice President.

 

There is of course Condi Rice, however, she would be seen as too liberal for the Republican rank and file.

How about a ticket of Mitt Romney and Gale Norton?

No, no. Stick with a male to male ticket. Not trying to sound sexist, but wait until we have a real popular woman to put on the ticket. A governor, who is a 45 year old, attractive woman, then run her.

As a card-carrying member of the Christian conservative wing of the GOP, I'd accept Condi as Vice President any day of the week and thrice on Sundays.

A female candidate COULD be a handy candidate to have on the ballot provided that it's a good woman. First off, politicians need to realise something...women will not vote for women simply because they are women. Thus, you can not just pick anybody. I think the GOP should put Jodi Rell on the ballot, or (a little bit too moderate perhaps) Olympia Snowe. They would balance the ticket and bring experience to what I am predicting will be a rather young ticket.

Is Jodi Rell pro-choice?  Because I just can't see a pro-choicer being nominated for VP on the GOP ticket unless there's a *really* compelling reason to do it.  Also, as I previously mentioned, governors are almost never picked for VP anymore, though I suppose it could happen if someone with a lot of experience, like McCain, is at the top of the ticket.

Why do you predict that the GOP will have a "rather young ticket"?  Who are you expecting to get the nomination---Huckabee?  Even he isn't really *that* young.  Won't be much younger in '08 than Bush or Gore were in 2000.

I see Condi as the best choice for a Vice President Pick.  I of course would rather see her run for president.

I believe Rell is in fact pro-choice, however the benefits of having a moderate on the ticket that can assist the GOP in the moderate and Independent voter coloumns would more than likely trump a silly fringe issue. The GOP (who are evidentally going to be dealing with the likes of a popular moderate in 08') need something to balance their ticket, build on their reputation and appeal to the norther states. What better way to do this than with a moderate of their own?


Depends really. If another Governor was at the top of the ticket than it doesn't seem so unlikely that a governor would be picked for VP. Hell, it might even be effective...kind of an "anti-Washington" sort of thing.


Perhaps young wasn't the best word, more like fresh. I just get the feeling that the GOP candidate for 2008 wont be yet another dull, hard-line conservative with little charisma and/or wit. Perhaps a Giuliani, or even a Romney could drag in more of the youth than the GOP has been pulling.

I have no problem with a female VP candidate, as long as she's picked because of her qualifications, and not because you are just attempting to get some feminist vote.

Hutchison
Dole

Gross.
Double Gross.

I know but those are the most likely.

Well OK, I suppose it's possible, but there's no precedent for it in recent history.  The last four governors who received their party's presidential nomination chose Dick Cheney, Lloyd Bentsen, George H.W. Bush, and Walter Mondale as their running mates.  All of them had loads of Washington experience.  I guess part of it has to do with whether you think the identity of your running mate would make a huge difference in deciding the election.  If you don't think VPs matter in deciding elections, then you might as well just pick the person who you think would be the best VP, regardless of their electoral clout.  For a governor, this person might well be someone who really knows Washington.

The last time two sitting Governors ran and won for President and Vice President was 1912, when Democrats Governor Woodrow Wilson of New Jersey and Governor Thomas Marshall of Indiana were elected.

Republican Governor Thomas Dewey of New York tried it twice, with his running mate in 1944 Governor John Bricker of Ohio and with his running mate in 1948 Governor Earl Warren of California, of course, losing both times. 

Either Condoleeza Rice, Kay Bailey Hutchison, or Elizabeth Dole would be fine choices as a Republican VP candidate -I could see myself voting for such a ticket in 2008 provided it is topped by either John McCain, Mike Huckabee, or Mitt Romney.   

I would be content with either Dole or Condi running, but that's because they are both qualified for the roles.

Does anyone see a possibility of Linda Lingle, the governor of Hawaii as a vice presidential candidate with another Republican?

No, she's too liberal (or at least perceived as such) that the base will never accept her.  It would be like nominating Kerry Healey or Jodi Rell for the VP spot. 

Most interesting combination of prophetic topic with very wrong comments that I've seen.

Hilariously accurate prediction. This is my new sig!

NiK, I was JUST about ready to post what you just did! :) How ironic, really.

Well, I was right that the GOP nominee wouldn't pick a pro-choice woman for VP, and I was right that there wouldn't be more than one governor on the ticket.  I just failed to foresee the GOP managing to come up with a pro-life female governor to put on the ticket.  I wasn't paying attention to the Alaska gubernatorial race in 2006, so I didn't know who Sarah Palin was back then.  Don't think I really knew who she was until 2007.

Since someone bumped the thread, consider yourself quoted.

The nominee will be McCain and his VP will be Sarah Palin, a self-described Hockey Mom.

I don't really get how can anyone took Kay Bailey Hutchison seriously as acceatable choice for the Vice President for the Republican base.

KBH would be, in my opinion, excellent pick nationwide, but won't be acceatable for the base, and this would cause a great problems for any nominee.

Back in 1996, Buchanan openly threatned Dole he'll mount a third-party candidacy if he choose pro-choice running-mate. Nothing changed from these times (just like I don't see pro-lifer getting a Democratic nod).

Hutchison oficially declares herself as "pro-choice".