Clark/Dean Ticket

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

Do you think if Wesley Clark wins the Democratic Nomination, that Howard Dean would be considered by Clark as his running mate?

[Demrepdan]

Clark would be a good running mate for anyone who wins the nomination. Assuming, that Clark doesn't win the nomination himself, which is unlikely. In the debate they just had tonight, Dean and Sharpton seem to be a little chummy. Not much, but more so than the other candidates. Maybe Al will be Dean's pal, as discussed in another thread.

[Ryan]

Actually the moderate Prez candidate to pull the swing voters and the more extreme VP candidate to rally the base has long been considered the optimum combination.

However it's important that the VP not be such a controversial figure as to turn off moderates who would otherwise have considered his party ticket. The Bush Cheney ticket was near perfect in this regard.

Dean would probably do a lot more harm than good to a campaign. The party base he would attract would turn out to vote for Bush anyway (except MAYBE in case of Lieberman being the nominee and that not very likely )

[© tweed]

Christopher-I think you've got the ticket upside down.

[Nym90]

I don't think that anyone would choose Dean as their running mate, since historically candidates do not usually choose anyone who was a competitor for the Presidential nomination against them that year. There usually ends up being too much bad blood generated during the campaign for this to work out well. Yes, Reagan chose Bush in 1980, but only after Bush agreed to never again utter the phrase "voodoo economics"....

[NorthernDog]

I think Clarke is Dean's main rival, so I don't think they would get along either.  Also, Clarke has a history of "going off the reservation" (just ask William Cohen, Clinton's Sec. of Defense). Dean needs someone submissive (politically speaking).  Maybe Sen Durbin (D-Ill)?

[Ryan]

I think Clarke is Dean's main rival, so I don't think they would get along either.  Also, Clarke has a history of "going off the reservation" (just ask William Cohen, Clinton's Sec. of Defense). Dean needs someone submissive (politically speaking).  Maybe Sen Durbin (D-Ill)?

WOW!!! not one but TWO Northern liberals on the dem ticket. GO DEAN-DURBIN

[Demrepdan]

I think Clarke is Dean's main rival, so I don't think they would get along either.  Also, Clarke has a history of "going off the reservation" (just ask William Cohen, Clinton's Sec. of Defense). Dean needs someone submissive (politically speaking).  Maybe Sen Durbin (D-Ill)?

Durbin has been asked if he would ever consider being on the ticket as the VP candidate. He stated that he would never want to be Vice President, because he likes to handle things his own way, and make his own achievements and mistakes.  A Dean/Durbin ticket, or Anyone/Durbin ticket, a'int gonna happen.

Sorry my Republican friends

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

I think Clarke is Dean's main rival, so I don't think they would get along either.  Also, Clarke has a history of "going off the reservation" (just ask William Cohen, Clinton's Sec. of Defense). Dean needs someone submissive (politically speaking).  Maybe Sen Durbin (D-Ill)?

WOW!!! not one but TWO Northern liberals on the dem ticket. GO DEAN-DURBIN

I agree that Durbin will not be a vice-presidential candidate. and that two Northern Liberals would never win the nomination. However, I do believe that an Edwards/Dean ticket would be awesome. Edwards, a Southerner, fairly young and vibrant, could storm the South, and win it back for the Dems, with the Help of former Pres. Clinton, and Al Gore. Then Dean could ravage the East/NorthEast like a Hurricane. What a ticket that would be. I cannot see Dean as President, but as a vice president, definitely. That's only my perception of him. The American People would like someone young and fresh looking, that is Senator Edwards, he somewhat reminds me of Kennedy.

[agcatter]

Edwards could storm the South and win it back for the Democrats?  

Edwards couldn't even "storm" his own state and win re-election to the Senate.  He might storm the Southern trial lawyer vote however.

Memo to Dems - you've blown it in the South.  Try another strategy.

[Ryan]

Frankly I have heard a lot more praise of Edwards from northern liberals than from southern moderates or conservatives

There is a mistaken belief in the North that people down south will vote for any southern white who is articulate and not an all out liberal. eg. Clinton.
I dont believe thats true at all. I fact I know it isnt

Edwards would be judged primarily on his policies and ideology more than his ability to "connect" to southern voters.
I admit he was able to do the latter in 1998 in North Carolina but now he has a Senate record and it aint pretty....not to Southern eyes anyway.

[Demrepdan]

Memo to Dems - you've blown it in the South.  Try another strategy.

Like, maybe winning the mid-west? And north-east?
And the pacific west? There are a lot more electoral votes in those areas than 11 southern states.

[agcatter]

Like threading a needle.  Dems would have to sweep those areas.  Also, means holding Oregon, New Mexico, Wisconsin, and Iowa all carried by Gore last time by about one half of one percent or less.  Bush can even afford to lose NH and West Virginia and still be elected due to the shift of electoral votes to the sun belt due to the last census.  However, you have the right idea.  My point was that counting on "storming the South" is pretty pie in the sky.

Bush has some margin of error.  The Dems don't.  I like the President's chances.

[Ryan]

Memo to Dems - you've blown it in the South.  Try another strategy.

Like, maybe winning the mid-west? And north-east?
And the pacific west? There are a lot more electoral votes in those areas than 11 southern states.

Just like that

Also a lot of republicans put far too much focus on building and preserving a "solid" south. Thats an amazing advantage but really not enough. The MIDWEST must NOT be neglected!!!

[Demrepdan]

The MIDWEST must NOT be neglected!!!

Indeed. There is a lot more to us "fly over states" than people realize. We hold the powerful sword of the vote in our hand.

[StevenNick]

No matter who democrats run in 2004, they're not going to win a single Southern state, not even West Virginia.  They've simply strayed too far left to appeal to Southern voters.  Too weak on foreign policy, too liberal on social issues.

The only states that democrats have a prayer of prying from the republican column in 2004 are New Hampshire, Missouri, and perhaps Nevada.  I think those may all be real long shots for the dems.

I think dems will have such a hard time because I think that Dean is going the sweep the primaries.  He's going to kill Gephardt in Iowa, Kerry in New Hampshire, and maybe even Edwards in South Carolina, and/or Joe Lieberman in Arizona or Oklahoma.  Once he starts winning he won't stop.

Clark won't even be a factor in the primaries.  By the time South Carolina rolls around I think he'll be completely forgotten.

Once Dean is crowned the official nominee he's going to immediately become a drag on the party.  Watch his numbers slump, Bush's rise.  On Election night, Bush will sweep to victory with 40 states and firmer majorities in both houses of Congress.

No vice presidential candidate is going to save dems from defeat if Dean is at the top of the ticket.