Talk Elections

Although the normal role of a VP candidate is, Do No Harm, perhaps this election will be different.
I assume Dean wins the nomination, since he is the candidate with the most money, the only candidate with active campaigns in most of early primaries states, and he leads in NH.
So who would be his best and/or most likely VP running mate?
Compared to Gore, Dean probably would win NH, but that's all.  On the other hand he is unlikely to win anything in the South, (including FL).
With Dean at the top the Democrats have two valid electoral strategies to build on Gore's states.

1) Put on a Southern who can peel off several Southern states (such has FL, AK, LA, TN, WV).  
2) Abandon the South and go for an upper Midwest/Southwest strategy (OH, MO; CO, NV, AZ).

Neither Kerry nor Lieberman helps with either strategy.

For #1 the obvious candidates are Edwards, Graham and Clark.  I think Clark is actually the stronger candidate, bringing national security strength to balance Dean's total lack of experience.  Graham offers the promise of FL 27 EV, and Edwards NC, but I don’t think either could deliver.

For #2, NM Governor Richardson might energize enough Hispanics to win NM, AZ, NV, and CO.  I don't think Gerhardt offers much beyond a shot at MO and maybe help in WV.

Ay other thoughts?

I can't comment on Florida as I know next to nothing about it(see "Information needed), but I think that Edwards might help the Dems steal NC as the economic situation is pretty gloomy there at present.
Although having Dean on the ticket might trash that.

Edwards couldn't help in SC, he would have had trouble being reelected in the Senate.  

If Dean is the nominee, nothing is going to help him in the South.

The political and social undercurrents are such that Dean will be extremely lucky to win 10 states against Bush in 2004.

I agree that Clark or Richardson are the best bets Dean has (and I also agree that either will help him win :D)

And also (I'm being very Agreeable today ;D) since the midwest will be a decider in the event of a close race, a VP who can pull votes there might be a good idea. However I dont really know of anyone who fits the bill. ........

Gephardt as VP?? doesnt seem to work to me.
How bout Evan Bayh of Indiana??

Clark would be a great VP candidate.  He would bering the nat'l security strength that Dean doesn't have to the table.

Could you drop the excessive hyperbole occasionally?

So let's go one step further in speculation, if a Dean/Clark ticket was looking strong in the polls by the Republican convention, would Bush replace Cheney?

I think he could.
1) His policies have strong support in the conservative base, so he no longer needs Cheney to prove his conservatism.
2) Bush, is pretty practical and if a better VP were availble, he might go for him/her.

Best choice to strengthen Bush in the Mid-Atlantic would be Guliani, putting NY, NJ, and CT in play, solidify suburban support in OH, PA and MI.

The choice of Powell or Rice, might also add votes from the suburbs in PA, OH, MI, IA, WI, MN, FL.  I think it would also tend to increase the Hispanic vote for Bush, helping with CO, AZ, NM, NV.   Of course a minority VP would cut white support in the South, but it might be balanced by some gain in African-American support.  But I'm skeptical if any minority Republican would increase Bush's dismal proportion of the African-American vote.  

Clark would definitely make a good VP candidate. Number two would be Edwards. Those two candidates will more than likely help pull in a FEW southern states. Gephardt? Hmm...I dunno.
     I wouldn't be surprised if someone picked Carol Mosely-Braun as their VP candidate. If elected, she would be the first black Vice President, as well as the first female Vice President. But this a'int gonna happen.
Oh hey! What about Al Sharpton? ;)

I agree with what's been said on Edwards and Clark. Two very obvious choices, especially for someone like Dean.

I don't think Gephardt's pride would allow him to run as VP, but then of course you never know. Either way, he could actually garner more votes in the South than Clark or Edwards.

Bob Graham did his chances nothing but harm with a severely haphazard bid. Before his Presidential campaign I would have figured him along the favourites for a VP slot, but now he's just some crackpot has-been to most people.

Other names which I think are worth mentioning: Joseph Biden, Chris Dodd, Dianne Feinstein. Maybe Moseley-Braun too.

I think Clarke is very likely because he polls better w/ men and won't mind playing 2nd fiddle to Dean. He's also physically fit and could endure the rigours of the election campaign. (That would be a problem w/ Finestein she is nearly 70 y.o!) I think Gephart's and Kerry's strident attacks have angered Dean enough to cross them off the list.  
On the GOP side I think Cheney stays unless his ticker starts acting up again.

What about Hillary? Who knows, someone might pick Sen. Clinton as their running mate. That would be a very foolish thing to do though.

A) A black VP nominee wont help Bush crack into the black vote. A Hispanic VP might vastly increase the GOP showing in the Hispanic community. I would say that a BLACK GOP PRESIDENTIAL nominee wouldn't take more than 20-30% of the black vote and again the reverse applies to a Hispanic nominee

B) Bush would never drop Cheney unless Cheney himself elects to drop out!!!!
If there is one thing that endears Bush to ordinary people its his standards of integrity and loyalty. He would NEVER dump Cheney for electoral gain.

I just wish Cheney who is also a reasonable man and a party loyalist would see that the GOP would gain much more from SEVERAL other VP possibilities.

Then mark this thread for future reference and we'll see how much of an exaggeration it was.

Clark was fired from his command and the details aren't pretty.  He would not be a safe choice.

Hmmmm I wonder who it was who made the following quote about poor ol' Reagan ;D

As far as the GOP goes, I don't think Bush will drop Cheney unless Cheney drops dead...or at least comatose.
For the Dems, Clark was the favored VP contender for Dean until he got into the race.  I wouldn't be surprised to see Edwards picked as a running mate by the nominee, considering the need to at least make the South competitive.  (And Edwards is not running for reelection to the Senate).

I've been told on a previous thread that Clarke would never be Dean's Running Mate because they are running against one another and because they disagree on many issues. The one commonality they do share, and all candidates do, is the belief that G.W. must be sent back to Texas to live.

I don't think that Clark and Dean like each other.

Hmm I heard otherwise....that they were in touch before Clark ran and Clark even gave Dean some advice an all. Still the info may  not have been that accurate

Dean seems to have upset both Clark and Edwards over the Battle Flag remark/row.

Before Gephardt and dean attacked eachother at the debate, they would have made exellent partners. but now.........no

Does ANYONE get along with Dean? By this reasoing, one would assume that NONE of the other contenders would be Dean's choice for the Vice Presidential candidate.

VP CAndidates- If Dean is the nominee, he needs a lot of help.  He does not play well in the South and will hurt the Congressionala nd Senate candidates.

Some picks not mentioned here are Gov Rendell of PA ( Dems must win PA to win); Sen Bayh (IND) to play int he midwest and he has political ambitions in 2008, unfortunately he is up for reelection in 2004 and unlikely to do it.  But yes those mentioned also ie Richardson, Clark and Edwards.  Edwards has said many times though he doesn't want to be VP.

Carol Mosley-Braun has said the same thing. She says she is "in it to win it".

 Other people that probably won't accept the VP nominaton are Liberman (for certain) Kerry, and Gephardt. Kerry and Gephardt might reluctantly accept the nomination. But I think Gephardt, even more so than Kerry, won't want to be VP after having run for the President TWICE and lost the nomination.

Mosely-Braun is in it to raise name recognition. By now it should be clear to her that she can't win it. She needs to leave and stop taking time away from other Dems in the debates.

I believe Edwards would accept the VP spot, doesn't matter what he says now. Edwards on the ticket would be energizing.

No way does Lieberman even get considered for a VP spot by anybody.

I heard a report that Dean was seriously considering Bob Graham (D-FL) for his VP pick.  Personally I don't think this is a good choice because: 1) Health concerns (heart)   2) Odd habit of keeping diary of ALL activities he does ea. day. 3) No guarantee he'll carry FL for the ticket.  

Plus his choo-choo went chugging around the bend.

Graham has a great resume.  Gov, Sen and popula rin FL until he attacked Bush so much.  

However, Graham was about as boring as a dead cat in his campaign.  I thought he could have been strong but he was FLAT!  I think IF a Dem wins Graham would be better serving in defense sec or homeland sec director with his intelligence background.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/02/column.shields.opinion.nominee/index.html

An interesting article from Mark Shields about a potential VP candidate that I hadn't thought of before. New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer. Maybe those of you from New York can fill in some more of the details about him, I really don't know too much about the guy other than that he wants to run for Governor in 2006.

Karl Rove's dream team :)
()

Maybe Tom Harkin of Iowa?  It would help Dean in the Midwest and he and Harkin are birds of a feather.  

Why would Spitzer be considered unpatriotic?

I dont think Harkin will run

It likely won't make much of a difference who the VP is, and people generally do not vote for Vice Presidents. Predictions that a particular VP candidate would allow one candidate to peel off large regions of the country are not going to come true.

Clark could help the nominee look more patriotic as a VP, or an upper-midwesterner might signal to those voters some degree of sympathy for them. But don't expect any dramatic gains by picking a certain VP candidate.

That's true, the VP nominee is not that critical, even an excellent or truly awful VP candidate isn't going to make more than 1 or 2% of a difference nationally, and probably not affect more than a few states. In a very close election though, it could make the difference between victory and defeat.

Yeah I think an overlooked aspect is that the Pres. and VP have to look like they can work together well as a team. Be "birds of the same feather".

HArkin, nope, no way unless you want no states in Dem column.  I couldn't even dream of a all liberal dem ticket.

Harkin some days is left of ole Ted Kennedy and Harkin is proud of it.  

Well, I doubt that a Dean/Harkin ticket would lose all 50 states.

Was being a bit sarcastic, but I have 0% doubt they'd lose.

Well, you never know. Harkin would not be the best choice for Dean, but he would help to secure Iowa and perhaps also help some in the rest of the Midwest. A Dean/Harkin ticket could still win but if Dean is the nominee he'd be better off picking someone more moderate than Harkin.

What Nym90 fails to understand is that the Iowa caucus is not the "be all, end all" of American elections, and its results don't represent the Pulse of the Nation. Christopher Michael.
Nym90 is welcomed to argue with CM.

A Democrat Candidate's focus should be on the East Coast and the South. Two candidates come to mind that fit the bill: Senator Edwards and Howard Dean.  If Sen. Edwards comes from behind and becomes the Democratic Nominee for the Presidency, perhaps he would choose Howard Dean as his running mate. A Southern/East-NorthEastern Victory to win the White House!??
Here's another scenario: Two Southerners, Clarke [from Liittle Rock, Pres. Clinton, from Little Rock] and Edwards as his running mate, a Southerner [Gore, was also from the South.] I don't even want to read anyone responding back to this that two Southerners could not win the White House again. Look at the Clinton/Gore  Record. People will remember the good ole' days.

I doubt Dean would go along with that. It would be way too humiliating for him, going from being the "anti-establishment" candidate and the Next Big Thing, to playing second fiddle to someone approved of by the party mainstream.

I also think that those Democrats who support the likes of Clark and Edwards would rather be stuck in a lift with Don Rumsfeld than have any affiliation with Howard Dean.

But since we're talking Northern liberals, how about Biden or Durbin? Or even John Kerry?

I wasn't referring to the Iowa Caucus, I meant that Harkin would help Dean in Iowa in the general election.

yes Dean will help the nominee in the genral , just like Grassley will help the President.

IA is sitting good politically for the Senate.  Even though not a Harkin fan AT ALL.  He is chairman of AG cmmte when Dems run the place and Grassy our name for him.  is head of Finace Cmmte and pushing Ethanol bill as Harkin pushed the farm nbill that Bush signed.  Grassy also brought Prescription drugs through.

Evan Bayh would be more likely to join the GOP than even vote for Dean! I would not be too surprised to see him join Zell in actively campaigning for the big W.

Spitzer might be a good choice, if you can convince him. The GOP would have a good chance at NY with Dean as the nominee. The big Q for Eliot is, who would he run against in '08? He could maybe beat Pataki. He would go down in flames to Rudi.

Richardson is also an intelligent choice. Wil it sway any states? Likely not. But the Dems need to stop the GOP from dominating the Mexican vote as much as they do the Cuban.

But I don't think even Abraham Lincoln as Veep could give Dean this election. The problem is him. If he joins Jimmy Carter in actively attemting the destruction of the only democracy in the MidEast, he may even cost himself "Massachusatts, the one and only".

2006 would be the Gov election in NY and Spitzer has his eyes set on Gov mansion.  Mark Shields today does have piece touting Spitzer for VP.

2006 will be in interesting in NY.  Sen Clinton adn Gov Pataki are both up.  Then you have Guliani and Spitzer as wild cards.  Also Pataki seems to want to be Prez or at least try and so may or may not run again for Gov ( a 4th term)

Bayh wants to be Prez and will stay a dem as like Miller he and his father ( family) always have been.  
Tough for him is that he is up for reelection in 2004.

I've said this in another thread, Sen. Durbin has said that he has NO plans of serving as someone elses Vice President. Biden has a good chance of being Senate Minoirty Leader if Tom Daschle were to end his leadership. John Kerry might want to be Vice President, but I doubt it. He probably wants it all, or nothing at all. Which brings me to Frank Sinatra......

Well I hope John Thune runs and beats Daschle and then Sen Biden could move on up.