Choice for VP?

[Saint Stephen]

Who would you like to see on the ticket for VP?

I'd like Obama, for the following reasons:

1) He's from Illinois and reaches out far beyond the state into other midwest states that are battlegrounds

2) He's perceived as honest and upright and a straight-shooter

3) He's got no skeletons

4) He's articulate and convincing

5) He cares about the poor beyond just getting their votes. He REALLY cares.

6) He's not afraid of the right. I'd love to see him trash (in a debate) whoever the right-wingers pick for VP.

[CarbonDate]

1. I'll disagree on a couple of counts.

First, I think we should get a nominee before we worry about the nominee's running mate. Just a thought.

As to your points:

1) Illinois is a very blue state, and there are others in the region that would probably have as much "reach".

2) So was Al Gore.

3) You don't know that.

4) So are many senators.

5) You don't know that.

6) He's very centrist, so he'd probably agree with them half the time.

Obama's okay, but he's only a first term senator, and a very centrist one, at that. He made one good speech and people want to put him in the White House, already....

[Saint Stephen]

7. Good points

I disagree with you enough on #1 and #2 to counter-reply.

1) No one else in the midwest gets talked up like Obama. You even said yourself that people want to put him in the White House already. There's a reason for that.

2) And he won as VP... twice. But Al Gore was only perceived as honest until he went on the election trail in 2000. Then he got painted as a liar. I'm not saying he was or wasn't, but he got painted as one and it stuck... hard.



I'll add one more to my list... he's new and fresh. You may see that as a disadvantage and want someone from the Old Guard, but i like new and fresh.

[amitten]

21. I watched the 2000 election very closely and Gore was not ever

effectively painted as a liar. He isn't a liar, and if you think that nonexistent particular label "stuck", then maybe you liked his opposition a weensy bit more than you're letting on.

I hate to tell all you Republicans-at-heart this, but we Dems are too smart to go for Obama as VP. Too many ass-backward inbred bigots out there to get him enough votes. That said, in theory he would make a good VP I'm sure.

[Saint Stephen]

34. Perceptions

effectively painted as a liar. He isn't a liar,

You and i both agree that he's not a liar, but the media went after him in a big way and a lot of people thought of him as a liar by the end of it.

And how is my pointing out this misperception in any way suggesting that i agree with them? Am i not even allowed to listen to the opposition to hear what they are saying or thinking? That's a ridiculous way to fight a battle. You have to know what you are fighting to be able to effectively fight! When you know your enemy, then you can counter him more effectively. That doesn't make you become the same as your enemy.

[amitten]

45. You must have been watching a different campaign.

I do not recall meeting a single person during that campaign that viewed Gore as a "liar", or anyone who had been misled to believe that Gore was a liar. If you think that was somehow a big part of the anti-Gore pro-Bush campaign, you were either a) watching Fox News alone for coverage or b) living in a cave. I remember Gore being called robotic, insincere, over-rehearsed, etc. But liar? Not once.

[Saint Stephen]

46. Bush himself called Gore a liar

and said he couldn't be trusted. Are you saying that the right-wingers didn't eat that up and believe Bush??

Issues where Gore was falsely accused of lying:

1) Inventing the internet
2) Buddhist temple
3) Prescription story
4) Bradley's plan (even Bradley made him out to be a liar)

Do these jerkoffs think Gore was a liar? Do they have any influence over their sheeple?

http://www.nationalreview.com/gorelies/gorelies.shtml


I can't believe you never heard of any of this. The whole election was turned upside because of this issue.

[amitten]

47. The election was turned 'upside down' by not one of those

non-issues. Again, the only people yapping about any of that are Fox devotees. Which you probably are. The general public wasn't even vaguely aware of the things you listed, with the exception of the internet thing, which was largely viewed as late-night talk show joke fodder. Very unimportant. Affected the election not one whit.

That said, I refuse to debate this with you further, as I find discussions with Republicans dull and pointless.

[snowbear]

48. Yeah.. what amitten said...

And besides that, the National Review is a rightwing rag!!!

[Saint Stephen]

50. Of course it is

That's my point. The right-wingers made up the charges and their sheeple believed them.

[Saint Stephen]

49. You proved my point

Again, the only people yapping about any of that are Fox devotees.

THAT is my point. Fox and other right-wingers were convincing huge swaths of their sheeple of these charges. Those sheeple voted.

[snowbear]

52. Who watches it? ...Do you?

Because I sure don't...

[RoyGBiv]

56. I love your smileys ...

Just had to say that. :-)

[Saint Stephen]

57. I watch it to see what the enemy is talking about

Ignoring it would be foolish, imo.

Do i spend all day watching it? Of course not. It only takes 10 minutes a week to figure out what the latest right-wing drama is.

[RoyGBiv]

53. These "sheeple" are not the majority.

The "majority" actually voted for Gore, in case you forgot.

[Saint Stephen]

58. I didn't forget

And i don't claim they are the majority. I only claim that it was an issue for right-wingers to feed on.

[RoyGBiv]

62. So, again, what is your point?

Right-wingers can feed on it all they like. Right-wingers are going to vote for the right-wing candidate regardless. How does what right-wingers think of something influence popular perception?

[amitten]

54. Yeah, and those sheeple lost Bush the election.

Gore won the popular vote. The Supreme Court handed Bush that victory, as you well know. Fox failed. Not that you won't keep watching them...probably with an open mouth.

[Saint Stephen]

59. Well

You seem to have no interest in debating without insults or false accusations, so i'm going to ignore you from now on. I've never said one rude word to you, but you seem to think that it's ok to insult me in every post. Good day to you.

[snowbear]

61. false accusations?

:o :o :o

What did amitten say that was a false accusation??? :o :o :o

[amitten]

63. I dared tag him Republican, which he likely is. He just about got

tombstoned in another thread. I take his choice to ignore me as a compliment. I should have ignored him sooner...but Repub blood is so tasty during the holidays. :evilgrin:

[RoyGBiv]

51. That's an interesting link ...

It relates to your theory regarding popular perception in what way exactly?

Forgetting for a moment that Gore actually received more popular votes than Bush, what hurt him, if anything specific hurt him, was his personality in much the same way Nixon's personality hurt him against Kennedy. It wasn't for the same reason exactly as in the latter case, but it was similar. Gore was portrayed as a "stiff," not "one of us," one of those evil intellectuals. Bush laughing about "math" when referring to certain Gore positions in such a way that it appealed to the ignorant who feel put-upon by inellectuals did more for his campaign than any policy position.

But, it wasn't about lying. That false charge was barely on the radar except among certain circles who wouldn't have voted for Gore anyway.

[Saint Stephen]

55. Good points

Thank you for responding with something of substance.

Of course there is no way i can prove that independents voted for Bush because they viewed Gore as a liar, just like you can't prove the opposite. It's just my opinion based on what i read in the media at the time and who i spoke with at the time.

That false charge was barely on the radar except among certain circles who wouldn't have voted for Gore anyway.

Perhaps, but it was a way to stir up the sheeple and get them to vote. Bush needed every vote he could get.

[RoyGBiv]

60. Actually, I can ...

As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, people do exist who make it their business to study these kinds of things. I just don't have the data handy at the moment and am not given to making broad pronouncements regarding proof or certainties without data to back it up.

I studied the 2000 election in a semi-professional capacity (assistant to a political scientist) rather intensely. Statistically speaking, the reasons people voted for Bush related very little to their opinion of Gore. Bush's handlers were very good at their jobs. They failed ultimately with popular perception, but they did well enough to get it to the point where a cunning political machine could influence the final outcome regardless of popular perception.

[long_green]

2. Reason #6

how many times have we trashed their candidates in debate? What was the result?

[Saint Stephen]

10. It's hard to say

It's possible that Kerry would have done even worse had he and Edwards lost the debates.... really hard to say.

[SHRED]

3. Clark/Edwards '08

But I'm open to suggestions.

[secretmouse]

4. I like Obama...

...but I doubt if he'll be nominated...I like the idea of Barbara Boxer (D)CA...she has Repugs for lunch! I'm thinking Clark/Boxer.

Elizabeth Edwards is still recovering from breast cancer...I doubt very much that her husband would want to leave her to campaign, etc.

[Saint Stephen]

8. How is she doing btw?

I haven't heard anything for some time... i hope she pulls through.

[firefox]

5. If they are not speaking out against Bush's Blunder, forget it.

He might be articulate, but he is not articulating on the criminal control of our government, stolen elections, an illegal war in Iraq, or the need to impeach Bush. He is just another player concerned with his own office.

[SHRED]

6. He plays too nice.

We need more than nice.

On Edit:
We need a real opposition party again!

[Saint Stephen]

9. True

But who do you support then.... who would do those things you want?

[Crazy Guggenheim]

11. People vote for the Pres. not VP.

[elfin]

12. But they can vote AGAINST a Pres. nominee

if it is close based on VP as a deciding factor.

I still like Clark/Richardson as a ticket, but now am a bit worried about the missing weapons materials on New Mexico if it can be tied to any laxity on his part.

[Crazy Guggenheim]

14. What does that have to do with V.P.? Besides the election should not be

close in 2008!! Electability is bullshit!! You have to learn that from 2004.

[Saint Stephen]

13. You don't think Cheney got a lot of votes in 2000?

from people who thought he would keep Bush from dropping the nuke suitcase on his toe?



Except for Cheney, most VPs don't stand on their own, so i agree with you to a degree. But they do help to solidify the choice and they are expected to help in battleground states. If they didn't matter, then picking them wouldn't be so hard. But they do matter... which is why they are picked carefully for what they can add to the ticket, be it an important state or region or a great personality, etc.

[Crazy Guggenheim]

15. People don't know that.

[Saint Stephen]

16. People don't know what?

Sorry, which point were you referring to?

[Crazy Guggenheim]

18. Both of them. Besides what makes you think Obama is going run?

[Saint Stephen]

20. You're saying that the people don't know how a VP is picked?

And how much effort is put into making the right pick for political reasons?


Besides what makes you think Obama is going run?
I have no info either way. It was just my opinion of who i'd like to see run.

[Crazy Guggenheim]

24. I'm saying they don't care who the V.P. choice is!

[RoyGBiv]

43. I'll go out on a limb ...

And I don't think it is a very long or dangerous limb.

No, people don't know how a VP is picked, nor do they realize how much effort is put into making the right pick in the sense they don't know what kind of effort nor do they know what qualifications are considered essential to the pick.

Believe it or don't, the party itself has more input into the pick that most people I've encountered seem to believe. Based on my conversations with people, I see people getting this image of an all-powerful Presidential candidate making every decision and calling all the shots. That's simply not the case. The Presidential candidate can and does at times assume various levels of authority in such decisions, and in the end, that candidate does tend to have the ultimate final say on the pick. But, no candidate goes into a national race without the backing of the official party structure, and those party leaders have a great deal of influence in making these decisions.

[RoyGBiv]

22. Historical data disagrees with you ...

Believe it or not, people exist who do this kind of analysis for a living. Little data exists that supports the notion a VP candidate actually helps a Presidential nominee except when viewed through a certain angle of the lens. A VP candidate can hurt a Presidential candidate, but historically speaking, not very often and not necessarily to a degree that makes any difference at the end. Political scientists generally agree that Dan Quayle hurt Bush I. He still won in '88, and the reasons for his loss in '92 aren't realated to the VP candidate.

So, I'll say it again. I don't care, and since the mid-terms are far more important in the current scheme of things, I really don't understand why some people focus so heavily on it. Presidential candidates are rarely predicted this far out. In fact, since the 80's, the so-called "front runner" at mid-terms didn't even make it to the nomination finish line.

[Saint Stephen]

26. But if that's the case

then why are they picked based on their home state/region so often? And why is the #2 vote-getter in the primaries a lot more likely to be picked for VP than the last place guy? If you want someone that doesn't hurt you, then you'd pick someone who didn't just lay waste to you in the primaries. You'd pick some harmless guy from whereever.

I'm not saying they win elections. I'm just saying they play an important role, albeit a small role.

[RoyGBiv]

33. Please provide evidence ...

... that the #2 vote gettier in the primaries is "a lot more likely to be picked for VP than the last place guy." Name them.

I'm also not so sure that VP candidates truely are picked based on their state/region. That's the conventional wisdom, fed to us by the wonderful, totally uneducated in political science "journalists" on the TeeVee, but how true is it? I've seen little data that shows it is true at all in modern elections. It seems more of a myth based on a kernel of truth. In the early days of the Republic, a regionally balanced ticket was considered important. But, regional ties now are not what they once were. Kennedy chose Johnson, in part, for the Texas vote, and Johnson delivered it, although not necessarily through entirely normal means, i.e. it wasn't so much that Johnson appealed to Texas voters as Johnson had a lot of high-level Texas officials and power-brokers in his back pocket. VP candidates today don't generally have that level of influence.

One election often cited as a case where the VP candidate "helped" the Presidential candidate lose not as badly as he might have is the '88 election. More than a few people voted for Dukakis because he chose Bentsen as his running mate. But, Dukakis didn't choose Bentsen based on a regional affiliation. He chose him because his conservatism balanced Dukakis's liberalism. And, I might add, Dukakis still lost.

[ruggerson]

17. What about Cindy Sheehan?

Just kidding.

:rofl:

[Crazy Guggenheim]

19. .................

:popcorn: :applause: :woohoo: :rofl:

[Saint Stephen]

23. Ok, i'm a good sport

That's a fair shot. :)

I got the message in that thread. That's why i'm starting a new one which is less likely to inflame others. Bear with me... i'm learning.

[amitten]

25. You're just not learning very much, or very quickly.

Typical. You and your President share many of the same qualities. :thumbsup:

[Crazy Guggenheim]

27. Wooooo Hooooooooo!!

:spray:

[amitten]

28. Hmmm...wonder where the little guy went?

Off starting another fake thread, I guess.

[Saint Stephen]

30. Why the insults?

I don't see the reason for you trying to pick a fight with me....?

[Crazy Guggenheim]

31. You seem to have feelongs about that? How does that make you feel?

:grouphug:

[Saint Stephen]

36. It makes me curious

I don't get the reason for it so i asked. :)

But judging from the other posts, i take it that i'm perceived to be a troll who is secretly a republican, so i guess that's my answer. I've tried to explain myself, so there's nothing more i can do to counter it. Hence, i'll just ignore it now.

[Crazy Guggenheim]

40. No you mentioned you're a PhD. Psych. student. You seem to

feel that you are being attacked. I'm just asking you to explain your feelings. But if you're not ready to do so that's fine. Just give it some time ......

[Saint Stephen]

41. LOL

Not everything in psychology is about mental health, but thanks for the joke. :)

[Crazy Guggenheim]

29. What about Lyndon LaRouche?

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

See...........

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/images/I51493-2004Oct21

[ruggerson]

32. Ok, Saint Stephen, here's who I'd like for Veep

That is, if he doesn't run for Prez himself:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0412.sirota.html

[Crazy Guggenheim]

35. Hey what about LaRouche??

:popcorn:

[snowbear]

44. No. No Larouche for youch.

http://eliteleague.co.uk/forum/images/smilies/lol!.gif

[snowbear]

37. Yeah, but... Warner & Schweitzer is kind of a tounge twister!

Seriously, say it three times fast..

Warner/Schweitzer, Warner/Schweitzer, Warner/Schweitzer..

http://eliteleague.co.uk/forum/images/smilies/lol!.gif

[ruggerson]

39. I know that is kind of a problem

and it sounds like they're running for the directorship of a Dresden beer hall

:)

[Saint Stephen]

42. Good choice

I like him a lot too.

[Hand]

38. Lieberman... seriously...

JUST KIDDING! :hide: :nuke:

[The Magistrate]

64. Locking

The O.P. is no longer among us....