Which VP will help Kerry most?

[Doctor_J]

Let's talk electoral map. Lots of choices for VP, which one will put the most states in play, either from his/her stature, likability, campaign savvy, or home state? My choice: see my avatar.

[Doctor_J]

1. Look!

Clark is at 100%! :-)

[Zan_of_Texas]

4. Imagine

Imagine a world where a "balanced ticket" would include one man, one woman. One person of one race, one person of another race. One person of wealth, one person of moderate means.

I know, I know. Reality is, two white, straight, affluent, powerful men. Diversity has to do with states, okay okay, I know.

Maybe the ticket can at least be a bit more balanced than the previous "winning" ticket -- two straight, white, wealthy guys who lived in the same state (Texas) and had headed up oil companies. It was a diverse ticket because they were different oil companies.

[hope42mro]

8. Um..what are you? "Progressive" or something?

Actually, the reality you point out is depressingly accurate:hurts:. Um, all I can say is: better two white-straight-affluent-powerful men on OUR side than two whit-straight-powerful-affluent men on THEIR side. OUR white-striaght-affluent-men want to help people that aren't white, aren't straight, and aren't affluent. THEIR white-straight-affluent-men pretend like non-white, non-straights, and non-affluents don't exist.

I hope that's consoling, but I doubt it is. Sorry...

[nankerphelge]

2. Carrot Top isn't an option?

n/t

[ochazuke]

3. It's a touch choice

For overall appeal, Edwards is so good that I think people will be saying that the ticket is upside down.

But Edwards doesn't give a real shot at any state in particular.

Selecting a prominent figure from a major swing state like Ohio or Florida (Sen Graham in your poll) might be a better stratagy.

Clark is probably never going to be a first-rate politician. If he isn't ready for prime time now, I doubt that he will be by August. But having a Navy/Army ticket has an appeal to it. It might bring along some of those stubborn white guys.

[KittyWampus]

43. Clark Came In Second And Beat Edwards With The Media Assault

pretty damn impressive.

And Clark actually HAS pertinent experience in Leadership.

[Rationality]

5. Not that I would support him, but...

I'm surprised Evan Bayh wasn't an option.

[hope42mro]

6. Clark. He's the shit. Period. oh, and he balances Kerry perfectly

[MidwestTransplant]

7. What about Bill Richardson

[Doctor_J]

9. Good write-in

I forgot about him. I don't think he wants it.

[WRPendleton]

10. saw him on Matthews

Said something to the effect that he had made a promise to the folks of NM to finish his term. Matthews hinted that didn't necessarily mean anything, but Richardson replied and seemed pretty serious about his promise and that the folks of NM would not be very happy should he break it. Then again, who knows, the one constant is that things change. I wouldn't have a problem with Richardson as VP.

[Beaker]

18. Richardson may be hedging his bets for 2008...

breaking a promise to stay, and then being VP on a losing ticket in the general election would be a fast track to obscurity and looking for a real job(most likely as a high-paid lobbyist, seeing as the system is broken and all...).

[newyawker99]

27. Hi WRPendleton!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[HuskerDem]

35. Richardson is a great guy but I'm not sure he could deliver all that much

Plus, as mentioned earlier, he doesn't seem interested. The more name recognition we have on our ticket the better.

CLARK

[King of New Orleans]

11. Neither here nor there

Clark-Kerry would be the first ticket with both candidates being Catholics. Both men also have Jewish ancestry that the didn't know about until far into adulthood.

Just an unusual coincidence, don't think it should/would have an impact on the GE.

[Bucky]

14. Jewish AND Catholic? Wow, that'd give RW tin foilers some sleepless nites.

I doubt the Republicans would go after them for this since both they're shooting for both Catholic and Jewish votes this year. Plus it looks bad these days. Of course technically Clark worships at a protestant church, but people are just so, well, Heinz 57 about their religions these days, I agree that it just doesn't matter.

Clark would be good at locking down some of the swingable Democratic states like Pennsylvania, Arkansas, New Mexico, and West Virginia that we lost last time around. I doubt we'd take any serious Red states away from Bush & Cheney, but I do think he'd force them to spend money and time and volunteer hours down here. He would also help put Ohio and Kentucky into play.

I'm having trouble seeing a reason not to go with that synergy of Kerry-Clark. I hate to say this about my boy, but he makes a plausible #2 man in ways that Edwards, a core alpha male, doesn't. Edwards isn't very strong on the attack, whereas Clark can take it to the bad guys in hard harsh terms. Frankly I was a little shocked at how pointed his attacks were sometimes.

[nolabels]

15. " little shocked at how pointed his attacks were sometimes"

Hate to burst your bubble, but what heck do think he did for his living anyway. I mean like he wasn't some actor, kindiegarden cop or something.

Lets just put this way, I wouldn't want this guy looking to take me out at any capacity.

He is one of them dudes that sets out to do something and does it.

[MrSlayer]

16. Pennsylvania went for Gore.

Please, I shudder at the thought.

[loyalsister]

21. Would it also be

The first ALL military ticket? I hate the idea of that ticket. I am sick to death of conventional wisdom being that beating the war drum is required to win elections, and I am really tired of chasing machismo. War heroes don't impress me, the only thing about it that I care about is that it impresses baby boomers and the greatest generation for some reason. I would prefer some moderation on the military thing for this ticket. By selecting Clark, we let Pukes define patriotism and acceptable candidacy as only those who have gone to war. Well, there's more to experience than that, and I want a candidate who will balance Kerry. W'eve got the war hero thing covered. Enough already.

[King of New Orleans]

23. No

In fact it used to be the norm rather than the exception that candidates had spent some time in the military. Especially in the post WW-II era

Eisenhower-Nixon
Kennedy-LBJ
Ford-Dole
Nixon-Agnew
Carter-Mondale
Reagan-Bush (Reagan's service was stateside and more of a ceremonial type thing I think)

Those are just off the top of my head.

[loyalsister]

26. Oh, Come on!

You can compare Eisenhower's Military record to CLark's, but was Nixon a Celebrated war hero? I wasn't around for most of them, but these guys have a status that goes far beyond military service. They are "heroes" and don't want anyone to forget it. It's truly nauseating.
For women the only interest we have is if it wins. Otherwise, it's size comparison and childish obnoxious locker room politics. That's exactly what those threads read like. lol

[King of New Orleans]

31. Yuor original question was

would this be the first all-military ticket. The answer is no. If your asking is this the first all-military ticket with two decorated soldiers then maybe (though probably not).

Kerry was a war hero, but he spent only about 4 years of so in the military so it's not like he's a career soldier.

[eissa]

33. Yes loyalsister!

I have been slightly off put this election season with all the chest-beating going on. I like Clark and I think he would be great in an administration, but a Kerry/Clark ticket doesn't really offer enough balance. I still prefer Bob Graham or Tom Harkin (although given his support of Dean, I'm sure he's out). And even though I'm not crazy about him, Bayh would compliment a Kerry ticket well.

[LandOLincoln]

38. Please, Loyalsister, consider this:

If this were 2000, or 1996, your arguments would make sense.

However, this is 2004 and

a) we ARE at war and on two fronts;

b) we're running against a popular incumbent who's made it clear he's going to make his status as a "Wartime President" a major part of his campaign;

c) John Kerry and Wes Clark = two genuine war heroes vs. one chickenhawk and devout coward who used his privileged position in life to weasel out of serving in a war OF WHICH HE APPROVED. If he'd been against the war in Vietnam and declined to serve on that basis his would have been an honorable choice--except of course for the aforementioned pole-vaulting over the 500+ men in line ahead of him for the TANG;

d) the fact that Wes Clark went on to become a 4-star general with extensive executive and diplomatic experience is--as another poster said on another thread--a "4-star middle finger" raised to the chickenhawk Neocons who've got us into these messes for their own dubious purposes, and with no plan whatsoever to get us out.

[onehandle]

12. Read my sig...

[Kosmos Mariner]

13. Clark!

Time to start winning back the Red States!


:dem:

[jpgray]

17. Kerry/Clark--ticket of the god-like resume. :-D (nt)

[BL_Zebub]

29. If that's your idea of God's resume

Then I must be doing one HELL of a job :evilgrin:

[jpgray]

41. One with great liberal votes, one a Rhodes scholar, both war heroes.

Pretty damn hard to beat that. W's reads like "dodged draft, ruined some of the projects my dad's friends let me in on, ran for Governor"

[GRClarkesq]

19. Bayh should be on this list n/t

[last_texas_dem]

20. It's a tough one

I'm an Edwards supporter myself and I think Kerry/Edwards (that is, if Kerry *does* have the nomination all sewn up, which I suppose is beginning to be the assumption) is the ticket with the most national appeal. However, in terms of appeal on a state-by-state basis, Kerry-Gephardt or Kerry-Clark could be better scenarios in terms of the electoral college possibilities they could yield. I see Clark as helping in AR, LA, and possibly some more conservative states, and Gephardt being instrumental in MO and maybe OH. I know the consideration of what states different candidates help in in reaching those magic Electoral College numbers is very important. However, I decided to vote Edwards as I just see that as the best overall ticket. If I were an advisor to Kerry this would obviously be a very tough decision, though.

[Leilani]

22. If we assume this election will be close

then we need to go with electoral college strategy.

I see Clark able to bring in Arkansas, W.Va., & Louisiana(according tho John Breaux.)

I also think Clark will help in Arizona, N.Mexico, & Nevada.

Gebhardt is suited for a MidWest strategy. I don't know enough about his strength to judge whether he would be a vote getter.

I don't think Richardson wants it; he wants to run for Prez.

Edwards is appealing to many, but I don't know what states he brings in.

[ermoore]

24. Eh?

Max Cleland? I haven't even heard him mentioned, at least, only on DU. And you left off Bill Richardson and Bayh from Indiana, and Rep. Ford from Tennessee, three who will all be on Kerry's shortlist.

I'd read somewhere that Kerry's people didn't think Edwards would really help them that much in the South. He might give them a better chance to win NC, but it still would be very very far from a sure thing, but that they thought Bayh could give them Indiana almost for sure. Problem, as I understand it, with Bayh is that he might be pro-life (?) and obviously, a lot of Dems aren't down with that. I dunno for sure what the deal is there, maybe one of you does . . .

Personally, I think Richardson would make a good choice.

[Leilani]

25. Harold Ford is too young

I believe, at election time, he's a few years short.

[ermoore]

42. True

Yeah, he's definitely too young, but I think he's mainly on the list b/c he's african-american.

[ieoeja]

34. Don't care much for Bayh myself.

But I agree that he could probably bring Indiana all by himself.

[Auntie Bush]

28. Clark of course! There is no comparison to anyone else. n/t

[HuskerDem]

30. CLARK CLARK CLARK CLARK CLARK CLARK

100 reasons to choose Clark. Think I'll make that my next project.

[adamrsilva]

32. Clinton pushing Wes Clark is all about keeping John Edwards out

Clark will never be president, but Edwards very well could be after 8 years as Kerry's VP. I hate to sound like a Repub on this, but this is a clear threat to Hillary Clinton's chances of being president and you can bet Bill sees that.

[mmonk]

37. repub talking points

[mmonk]

36. Either Clark or Edwards

would have to rank high IMO. Clark closes issues concerning the IWR and any garbage about Kerry concerning the anti-war movement (Vietnam era) and brings Arkansas into play. Edwards could help carry NC which could help swing the election as well. I also like Bill Richardson amd Max Cleland as possibilities.

[mouse7]

39. Edwards is the best campaigner.

He gives a great stump speech. He would be valuable as VP in going out to sell Democratic policies. Kerry will need a "softer" alter-ego to go out an sell programs to the public, and I think Edwards has the most talent in that aspect.

Edwards should also be "schooled" to be the next Dem leader after Kerry. He's young and will make an almost untouchable candidate to run as a VP in 8 years. The GOP couldn't come close to a VP Edwards in a Presidential Campaign.

[Must_B_Free]

40. I picked edwards because

Kerry already has the military thing down. Edwards gives us more of a crack at southern conservative christians. I think his honesty, enthusiam and smile are very Christian.

[mb7588a]

44. Cleland or Edwards... lean Edwards. nt.

[IndianaGreen]

45. Kerry has yet to win the nomination

and I am hoping Edwards may be the one that will have to consider who he wants as a VP running mate.

We must resist the rush to a coronation. The race is still on!