Democratic Vice-Presidential Candidate

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by joncha


Hmm.... George Bush the First wasn't president that long ago, and IIRC he ran against Reagan for the nomination in 1980.

jon.

DOH!

Ya see folks? That's what screwing up your sleep routine does to you!

Excepting GBI, when was the last time it happened?

That's your assignment for today.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Truman... if elections after deaths count.

[Sava]

I think Edwards is the best choice. And because he is not retaining his Senate seat... it does make sense, as Shi pointed out.

Edwards is only 50, Imran. Waiting 8 years isn't out of the question. Perhaps its more wishful thinking on my part... but I think Edwards would be the best choice.

And jimmytrick, you are terrible wrong when it comes to this "northeastern dem" BS. Nobody thought Clinton could win in the North... but he did.

Plus, you aren't looking at the last election. There are many "red states" that were within a few thousand to tens of thousand of votes. Kerry doesn't need to overwhelmingly defeat Bush in those states. He just needs to get a few more votes than Gore did. And Kerry is a much stronger candidate than Gore was.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Edwards is only 50, Imran. Waiting 8 years isn't out of the question.

No, I do think he could wait 8 years. But I think he may be better served by doing so on the outside rather than as Veep. If you become the veep, you have to make sure your President survives for 8 years, so you can jump on at the end. If your President loses in the next election, then you are done (you are painted with your President). It is a HUGE risk if you really want to be President.

But, frankly, I don't understand why Edwards isn't running for the Senate. Maybe he is setting himself up for Veep? But it's always awkward when former primary opponents go on the same ticket (Kennedy and Johnson HATED each other, Reagan and Bush though worked fairly well).

[Winston]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Truman... if elections after deaths count.

If elections after deaths count, then LBJ is the most recent - apart from "Reagan's third term".

I suppose you could make a case for Richard Nixon as well.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If elections after deaths count, then LBJ is the most recent - apart from "Reagan's third term".

Well, I consider LBJ to be elected as "Kennedy's second term" . Truman was (barely) elected on himself, not because he was FDR's veep.

I suppose you could make a case for Richard Nixon as well.

Not immediate.

[Winston]

Imran,
We're talking about Vice Presidents who were later elected President, excluding George Bush. There have been three since World War II, of which you named the first one, Truman, as the most recent.

I pointed out that LBJ and Nixon were more recent, which you can't very well dispute.

[Sava]

I pointed out that LBJ and Nixon were more recent, which you can't very well dispute.

sure Imran can... he loves arguing against facts...

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
It's not just that -- we haven't had a VP elected prez immediately after serving as VP for a long, long time.

Sixteen years isn't that long.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yes, Miller has said in the past that he backs Bush over his leadership (and with Pelosi and Daschle, who can blame him). Of course the Dems can't kick him out (the voters voted for him, not the party) and he is BELOVED in Georgia.

Other Southern Dems are more conservative than mainstream Democrats. Some of them are more conservative than Northern Republicans.

Having Miller on the ticket would cost any dem votes up north without guaranteeing as big as a return you make it out to be in the south.

Graham or Labreaux would be much better candidates as VP, specially Graham given the importance of Florida.

[chequita guevara]

Miller would basically kill the Dem's chanes, as the Deaniacs would see it as a direct snub to them. Many of them would very likely be willing to sabotage the party in November over it. They are tired of being ignored and told to shut-up and like it.

[Sava]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Miller would basically kill the Dem's chanes, as the Deaniacs would see it as a direct snub to them. Many of them would very likely be willing to sabotage the party in November over it. They are tired of being ignored and told to shut-up and like it.

yeah Zell Miller is an asswipe... he can go **** himself

[Imran Siddiqui]

I pointed out that LBJ and Nixon were more recent, which you can't very well dispute.

The original question by Mad Monk said IMMEDIATELY after so Nixon is out. We are also talking about whether Edwards would take Veep with the hope of being President. If Edwards is planning on killing Kerry in a public assasination, perhaps LBJ works .

Try to keep up with the main goal of the discussion, will you?

Having Miller on the ticket would cost any dem votes up north without guaranteeing as big as a return you make it out to be in the south.

I don't think so, really. Veep candidates usually don't cost a Presidential candidate votes (unless he has a criminal record or has screwed sheep or something), but rather enhances appeal among a segment you are trying to attract.

See the Vice Presidency of Dan Quayle for that.

The only problem with Graham is that he is fairly old. And Breux is basically the same as Miller, only less outspoken about it.

[Winston]

I say Kerry wins the nomination and appoints Hillary as running mate.

All the late night hosts are hospitalized with heart attacks from spontaneous, excessive dancing on their desks.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Winston
I say Kerry wins the nomination and appoints Hillary as running mate.

All the late night hosts are hospitalized with heart attacks from spontaneous, excessive dancing on their desks.