Democratic Vice-Presidential Candidate

[Ned]

Mordoch, all that shows you is how Republicans can win in California.

You and Boris conventiently ignore what this election was about. The California budget, taxes and jobs. Arnie de-emphasized the social issues to the point that they did not matter at all. He did not run "AS" a liberal. He ran as a pro-jobs, pro-business climate, low tax fiscal conservative.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Of course he did. Bill Simon would have gotten slaughtered... in fact, he did. And Bush is much more like Simon than Ah-nold!

[OzzyKP]

*ahem* take your Governator discussion elsewhere.

As the nomination is not yet sealed up, I pose the question, if Edwards were to get it, who would/should he pick as his running mate?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Probably Bob Graham or Daniel Moynihan (if he wants it). Someone intelligent and experienced to take away the 'Dan Quayle' factor from him.. kinda like what Bush did with Cheney... but, of course, Bush was re-elected as Governor.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Probably Bob Graham or Daniel Moynihan (if he wants it).

Some how, I don't think Mr. Moynihan would be willing to rise from the dead to accept the VP slot.

[Imran Siddiqui]

He died? Why does no one tell me these things.

[Boris Godunov]

March of 2003

[Imran Siddiqui]

Damn ex-Senators... all dying on me.

Next you are going to tell me Strom died (I'm kidding! I'm kidding!) .

[OzzyKP]

He can pick Ted Kennedy.

[DinoDoc]

Good choice.

[OzzyKP]

Or maybe Daschle. But I don't think Daschle is interested.

[MrFun]

So no one has a definite answer to my question?

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by MrFun


I do have a question though -- do you think it's the case that a Southern Democrat has more of a chance for greater support in the Northern states, than a Northern Democrat has, in the Southern states? I was wondering about that, after reading your post. If this is the case, why??

When I was young the south was largely democratic but the civil rights movement cause a split in the party. You can go back and see the nasty history. As a result the south shifted and now leans to the right. Christian influence is strong here and is very pro-life, and just basically much more conservative than in the North. Northerners of all types and especially modern (liberal)Democrats are viewed with some distaste by many southerners and frankly, this will not pass for several more generations.

The south is more rural than the north and it is a well known fact that the Democratic party is very strong in urban American.

The northeast and west coast are the most liberal sections of the county. All things being even close to equal these areas are going to vote for a Democrat. Al Gore got this vote in 2000. Bush got the rest.

There is no reason to expect the Republican party to do better in those areas in 2004 running Bush. If Bush can win New York or California then the race is a blowout of biblical (Reagan) proportions.

The north has supported southern democratic candidates. LBJ, Carter, Clinton, and Gore (won the popular vote). Nominees from other sections of the county have not done very well for the democrats. Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis all lost, some pretty spectacularly. Kennedy won before that but he carried southern states. This was before the civil rights issue split the democratic party.

Actually, you can go back before then and talk about the State's Rights party in the South and all that jazz. But essentially, the north used to be Republican and the south Democratic but between Kennedy and Reagan things kinda got flipped around.

So, the answer to your question is that it is historically so.

[Capt Dizle]

How's that?

[MrFun]

ok, thanks