Clarkie1
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-25-05 08:48 PM
Original message |
A friendly reminder: VPs don't win elections. |
|
I just get the feeling some Du'ers need a little reminding of this political truism...also let's get refocused on the senate, etc., in 06'.
|
merwin
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-25-05 08:50 PM
Response to Original message |
1. On the contrary, Gore won in 2000. |
|
Just because the Supreme Court 'chose' Bush after Gore won doesn't hide the fact that Gore won.
|
Clarkie1
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-25-05 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. That's not what I meant. |
|
I meant the VP doesn't achieve victory for the ticket.
|
merwin
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-25-05 09:00 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
5. But if it was a polarizing figure like Dean, it would certainly help. |
|
Basically, if the runningmate is the head/symbol of a group or movement, you can be pretty sure that they'll vote for them even if they don't necessarily agree with everything the presidential candidate says.
That's why I'd go for a progressive president and a moderate VP. The moderates will be much more likely to vote for the democrat, if the choices are left president, moderate vp against right president, right vp.
|
Art_from_Ark
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-25-05 09:01 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
6. Sometimes the VP pick can doom the ticket, though |
|
Remember the Thomas Eagleton fiasco in 1972? Senator Eagleton was George McGovern's first choice for Vice Presidential running mate, but the news that Eagleton had undergone some sort of psychological counseling at one time or another set the media on a feeding frenzy and sent McGovern scrambling for a replacement. McGovern's campaign never recovered from that.
|
yellowcanine
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-25-05 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
13. McGovern wasn't going to win even with Jesus Christ as VP. And I voted |
|
for him. My first vote and damn proud of it!
|
Art_from_Ark
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-25-05 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
15. You are probably right |
|
However, for several weeks the damn news media was constantly harping about Eagleton's "psychiatric problems". I know that turned off a lot of potential McGovern voters in Arkansas at least.
|
bowens43
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-25-05 09:05 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
8. Johnson got the win for Kennedy. |
|
Without him, the very close election of 1960 would have gone to Nixon.
|
eallen
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-25-05 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
10. The dead in Uvalde don't vote like they once did. |
unrepuke
(763 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-25-05 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
12. The dead in Chicago vote more than ever |
Toots
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-25-05 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
14. A lot of Republicans only voted for Bush* because of Cheney |
|
I don't think he would have gotten selected without Cheney..
|
Ken Burch
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-25-05 08:53 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
3. that's not exactly what was meant, I think |
|
The point of the thread was that elections aren't necessarily decided by one's choice of running mate.
If they did, Nixon would've been doomed when he picked Agnew. Same with Bush/Quayle.
(Incidentally, my current theory is that Dan Quayle was chosen because he had the same drawbacks as a candidate as young Dub, and his placement on the team was meant as a chance to test out strategies for counteracting those flaws. Seems to have given them an effective strategy, at least in electoral terms.)
|
Yupster
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-25-05 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
4. Supposedly Bush was going to pick Kemp |
|
He was seen as a charismatic pretty face, but he was also seen as trouble and not a good follower of orders.
S Quayle was the alternative. Kemp without the troublemaking.
|
Lindacooks
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-25-05 09:04 PM
Response to Original message |
7. You mean like Bush in 1988? |
many a good man
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-25-05 09:07 PM
Response to Original message |
9. Just a bucket of warm spit |
|
In the past it was always a place to dump the nominee's chief rival. They only thing its good for politically is to nudge you over and pick up the veep's home state that you might have lost otherwise. The head of the ticket is the only that counts in presidential politics.
|
Davis_X_Machina
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-25-05 09:09 PM
Response to Original message |
11. Especially if they've lost before. |
|
This is why Richard Nixon vanished from history after 1960.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sat May 04th 2024, 06:36 PM
Response to Original message |