|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 10, 2004 11:30:24 GMT -5
With the expected victories in Virginia and Tennessee, Kerry seems to be unstoppable. Super Tuesday is just around the corner, and none of his opponents have any wind in their sails.
So, I pose the question of who Kerry will pick to round out his ticket. Please register your preferences and perhaps post an explanation of why you have such a preference. I have tried my best to get a geographic mix and to identify the Democrats who are being mentioned by pundits.
|
|
|
|
Post by Badger Hoya on Feb 10, 2004 11:38:04 GMT -5
At this point, as long as he doesn't do anything stupid (which, frankly, can be said about all the possibilities), I think Edwards should be it.
Not only does he have the geography to at least somewhat counteract the 'Mass-liberal' tag (even though I don't think it would result in any S. States being pushed the Dems way), but I think the 'sunny' attitude is what the Dems need to counteract the comparatively dour Kerry, Cheney, and Bush.
|
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 10, 2004 11:39:12 GMT -5
I think Kerry should pick Richardson. He has been a solid Governor in New Mexico, who has been able to balance the budget despite the budgetary issues that Bush has passed along from the federal level. Only a handful of Governors throughout the country can boast that achievement. That would give Kerry some credibility as a fiscal liberal who can balance the budget and keep spending under control.
Additionally, Richardson has executive experience, which Kerry does not have (save for his experience as lieutenant governor of Massachusetts under Dukakis). So, that would complement Kerry well.
Moreover, Richardson has his time as Ambassador to the UN, which gives Kerry an added boost on foreign policy and would show that he does not take foreign policy or national security lightly.
Furthermore, Richardson is a Hispanic, who might be able to make inroads into a constituency that Bush swept up in 2000. I don't know if Kerry wants to make this an issue, but US-Mexico relations turned sour soon after September 11 given how Bush needed to shift gears. Since then, there has not been much improvement, so maybe Richardson could give Kerry something among Hispanics in Arizona, New Mexico, and California, not to mention other traditional strongholds for the Democrats, like New York City.
Anyway, it seems like a no-brainer to me. I'm sure, however, that many of these people will get consideration. Gephardt might give Kerry the additional state (Missouri) that would push him over the top. Edwards could give him some credibility in rural and urban areas. We'll see...
|
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 10, 2004 14:27:32 GMT -5
Not only does he have the geography to at least somewhat counteract the 'Mass-liberal' tag (even though I don't think it would result in any S. States being pushed the Dems way), but I think the 'sunny' attitude is what the Dems need to counteract the comparatively dour Kerry, Cheney, and Bush. Edwards is definitely the choice of those with "conventional wisdom." He has not attacked Kerry, so the two could be compatible. Perhaps what is most compelling is that he gives Kerry some support in rural and suburban areas because Kerry has been raking in most of his votes in traditional urban strongholds. As such, Kerry v. Bush would look very much like Gore v. Bush on an electoral map of the United States. So, I can definitely see why some say Edwards is the man. My problem is the whole geographical argument. I believe that Kerry had it right when he said that Democrats could win the election without winning a southern state. Al Gore almost proved that. Were he to win in New Hampshire, he would have won the Presidency. Mathematically, it is a possibility, and I think Kerry is right to acknowledge it. That said, I can see why one would not want to openly concede the South. However, how does Edwards really help out? Would North Carolina or South Carolina jump over to Kerry? I don't think so. How about Georgia? Maybe, but not probable. Louisiana? Doubtful. Mississippi? Nope. Where Kerry stands the most chance of winning in the South is probably Arkansas, Tennessee, Florida, West Virginia, or Virginia. If he wants to win in Arkansas, isn't Wes Clark a better option than Edwards? If he wants to win in Tennessee or Virginia, how is Edwards helpful when Kerry is going to run clean sweeps in both of those states? As for Florida, what does Edwards really give Kerry that someone like Richardson does not, given Richardson's ability to relate to the Latino/Cubano constituencies? All of that said, I do like Edwards and have to tip my cap to NYCHoya who has, so far as I can tell, been an Edwards supporter from the start. I thought that Edwards was a little raw, and I say that having met the Senator, but he is showing himself to be someone who can bring new people into the party and make inroads in non-traditional Democratic areas. |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Mar 3, 2004 11:20:11 GMT -5
bump...
|
|
|
|
Post by Badger Hoya on Mar 3, 2004 11:23:26 GMT -5
Now that Kerry's got the nomination wrapped up, at what point do you think he's going to name a running mate? Sooner rather than later?
|
|
Z
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 409
|
Post by Z on Mar 3, 2004 12:23:42 GMT -5
i'm about as positive as can be that edwards will not be the nominee. i think bob graham is the likliest choice, followed by gephardt.
remember, if kerry holds all the blue states, all he needs to do is win FL or OH to take the general election. this is why graham seems like such a natural choice to me.
|
|
nychoya3
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,674
|
Post by nychoya3 on Mar 3, 2004 13:01:57 GMT -5
If you want a Senator from Florida, how about Bill Nelson? Granted, he's very inexperienced, but he's personally impeccable, articulate, and popular in Florida. And he's been to outer space!
I think Gephardt is a zero percent chance. Graham looks better on paper. He's smart and decent, but he comes off a bit loony the more you watch him.
Look out for a Governor - Tom Vilsack comes to mind. If we want to run on "Jobs" there aren't many who are better at talking about that issue area than Vilsack. For better or worse.
|
|
nychoya3
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,674
|
Post by nychoya3 on Mar 3, 2004 13:02:35 GMT -5
Just wanted to add, my three most likely are, in order, Richardson, Edwards, Vilsack.
|
|
|
|
Post by TrueHoyaBlue on Mar 3, 2004 13:06:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Mar 3, 2004 13:25:53 GMT -5
Now that Kerry's got the nomination wrapped up, at what point do you think he's going to name a running mate? Sooner rather than later? I am not sure when Kerry will select a running mate, as his campaign has been relatively tight lipped on the procedure that they will take. I think he would be well-advised to wait until the convention. As part of the vetting process, he should ask a short list of 5-10 candidates to hit the road, raise funds, and stump. Clark and Gephardt have already done this, but he should ask Clinton (Hillary) and others to do the same. Based on their performance and reception, he should make a judgment. In doing this, Kerry could line his coffers in a way that he couldn't if he simply named his VP candidate right now or in the early spring. Anyway, my two cents, but I feel strongly on this one. |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Mar 3, 2004 13:29:19 GMT -5
Interesting take, but I doubt it highly. If 9/11 had not happened, Clinton would be a great selection, but, if Kerry puts him on the ticket, it will bring in issues of what Clinton should have done to prevent 9/11, and I think those kinds of things are better left in the past than brought up in the current campaign. I stand by hope that Kerry will pick Richardson. For those who are looking to the South, I don't think Edwards has helped his case much, as he has only won one state (which equals Dean and Clark). Graham shot himself in the foot with his ragged campaign. How about Sam Nunn? |
|
nychoya3
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,674
|
Post by nychoya3 on Mar 3, 2004 14:26:04 GMT -5
As long as we're speculating
How about nominating Bush? That'd be an incredible gesture of bipartisanship. I can see the convention speech now. "Mr. President, you see the same polls I see. Come and join the winning team."
No more farfetched than a Kerry-Clinton ticket.
|
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Mar 3, 2004 15:20:27 GMT -5
As long as we're speculating How about nominating Bush? That'd be an incredible gesture of bipartisanship. I can see the convention speech now. "Mr. President, you see the same polls I see. Come and join the winning team." No more farfetched than a Kerry-Clinton ticket. While we are on the topic of far-fetched tickets, the best, most electable far-fetched ticket is Kerry-McCain. He would bring in AZ and votes in NM because of his being in AZ and would add a lot to Kerry's message of change because of his tireless fights against special interests. He would also add something in rust belt states if his performance in the 2000 Michigan primary is any indication. |
|
Z
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 409
|
Post by Z on Mar 3, 2004 15:51:49 GMT -5
man o man would that be some sweet revenge for mccain. i cant remember ever seeing a sitting senator as transparently hostile towards a prez of his own party as mccain. this ticket, obviously, still remains in the realm of fantasy.
|
|
DallasHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,633
|
Post by DallasHoya on Mar 3, 2004 17:35:29 GMT -5
You can't remember a Republican Senator more hostile to Bush than McCain? How about Jeffords. You can't get any more hostile than someone who changes the balance of power in the Senate.
And speaking as somewhere who has lived in both Miami and Texas, the idea that a politician like Richardson can be popular with Cuban-Americans in Florida and Mexican-Americans in the Southwest, merely because he is Hispanic, is laughable. They're totally different groups politically.
|
|
Z
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 409
|
Post by Z on Mar 3, 2004 20:11:06 GMT -5
you're right. forgot about that one!
on richardson, agreed re: appeal to hispanics, but i dont think that would be the primary justification for his inclusion on the ticket.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,753
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Mar 3, 2004 20:26:20 GMT -5
Hispanics cross party lines more than some people think. In Texas, Tony Sanchez ran for governor expecting the Hispanic vote to carry him to Austin. In the end he still got only 39% of the vote.
By contrast, Democrat Ron Kirk (the former two-term mayor of largely Republican Dallas), carried almost 44% of the statewide vote in his Senate defeat the same year.
|
|
|
|
Post by HOYAinDC on Mar 9, 2004 8:28:22 GMT -5
The person who suggested McCain as a possible VP for Edwards knows absolutely nothing. McCain and Bush do not see eye-to-eye on many things, but McCain has been going around the country campaigning for Bush.
|
|
|
|
Post by showcase on Mar 9, 2004 9:27:50 GMT -5
The person who suggested McCain as a possible VP for Edwards knows absolutely nothing. Well, it's Kerry's choice, so you're correct on that score. But George Stephanopoulos has been floating the same idea for a few weeks now, and today we have... news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=694&u=/ap/20040310/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_mccain_1&printer=1Sure it's all pie-in-the-sky fantasy, but I for one love the idea. I liked McCain over Bush in 2000 since McCain stood for something more than "let's get me elected," and in this era of ridiculous partisan bitterness, I think selecting a Republican as a VP would be a stroke of genius (if Kerry had the stones to pull it off). Heck, this appears to be the perfect time to try it. The Dem. party faithful are energized are heading to the polls to vote against Bush no matter what. The Republican party faithful rile at that and will be at the polls in force too. Figure any alienation on the left from McCain's presence would be offset on the right by Bush's "no tax, but definitely spend" policies. But the swing voters who are probably uniformly sick of seeing all the self-righteous crap that gets slung back and forth in Washington? I would think they would gobble it up. For once, someone would be doing something to try to make the federal government less partisan that wouldn't just be lip-service. Ahh, it's nice to dream. |
|
