Vice-presidential Poll

[Perky]

An interesting exercise for a Saturday afternoon: In my mind this is a more interesting question than the typical Prez poll because it goes to more of a thought process on ticket-balancer, Electoral vote strategy polpular appeal than who you want at the top of the ticket. So the question is really who would you want to share the ticket with your guy or woman?

Too many choices and not enough slots so I had to double up on some. I am assuming that none of the first three would consider the number two slot anyway. But thought I had to list them.

The other group I really hated putting together but given ths open slots and the percived grass roots support for the other there was little I could do.

Cohen was a moderate republican senator from Maine before Bill Clinton tapped him to be Defense Secretary. He is smart and boring (ideal VP...ha-ha) and would be an interesting strategic choice.

[Perky]

1. Kickety kick

[TheFarseer]

2. Clark IMO

doesn't have the necessary experience to be president, but would be a very fine addition to the ticket as a VP.

[Clark2008]

14. Actually, he's been the equivalant of a head of state as NATO

Supreme Allied Commander. He has no experience to be a vice president.

He should be president or secretary of state.

[terrya]

3. Obama

I'd like to see a Feingold/Obama ticket, but I doubt it will happen. That would be my dream ticket.

[Perky]

6. The problem with Obamais that he is absolutely meteoric

I doubt most candidates would pick him because they would be concerned abut being outshone. The curse of charisma.

Also you typically balance senators with governors or vice versa. Two senators is pretty much a kiss of death.

[terrya]

10. I know. You're right.

A Feingold/Obama ticket has zero geographic balance. Both are from the Midwest. And a ticket with two Senators is limiting and probably unfeasible, as far as electiblitly.

It is my dream ticket, though.

[BringEmOn]

4. Crap! I thought Kerry's failed attempt to put McCain on the ticket

would put an end to this republican for VP bullshit.

[Perky]

8. LOL sorry I thought about him as I watched him on TV the other day

He would be acceptable for someone as green as Obama or Warner or someone like Finae Feinstein or Hilary. but that is about it.

[karynnj]

26. It was never Kerry's attempt

Kerry never ever said that he was considering McCain. The media suggested it, Biden spoke about it and was so enamoured with the idea he now thinks he and McCain should run. Once rumors started, McCain played with them. Kerry's only statements were that he wanted to publicly say nothing until he chose a VP. (He was one of Gore's short list and his view was that publicness of it was bad.) In Paul Reicoff's (sp? the Iraq vet) book - when they gave Kerry some input on who they liked and someone said McCain - Kerry said that was off the table.

This was another Newsweek myth designed to ridicule Kerry.

[longship]

5. Wow!!! Wouldn't Clark be great!?

:kick:

[Clark2008]

15. As VP? No.

We need a senator to be VP - president of the Senate.

Clark's talents in economics, in national security and as a diplomat would be wasted as VP.

[longship]

20. Whoa! Your points are very well taken.

You are correct about needing a Senator (or House member) as Veep.

So let's put Clark in as Secy of State.

[RB TexLa]

7. I think Vice-Presidents should be refered to as "what's his/her name"

[Homer Wells]

9. I rather like the way it was done in the first years

of our country's existence. President was the one who received the most votes, VP was the runner-up.

[mcscajun]

11. Yeah, but that was before the rise of political parties...

Wouldn't Bush/Kerry have made a very strange administration?

[Homer Wells]

13. Yeah, but can you imagine

how inept * would have appeared right off the bat without Cheney running the show!?
:popcorn:

[mcscajun]

17. Excellent point.

:)

[femmocrat]

12. Gore/Clark '08 = my dream team. n/t

[WA98296]

16. I like it.

[mcscajun]

18. I like it, but if Gore doesn't run, Clark is still my first choice.

There aren't too many Democrats I want to see Clark taking a back seat to other than Gore.

[Catchawave]

19. Edwards/Warner

The People's Ticket :patriot:

[Clark2008]

21. Bill Cohen????

That fucking jerk who took Wes Clark's job away from him because Clark was smart enough to win a war NOT over oil?

Hardly. :puke:

[FrenchieCat]

22. Bill Cohen was a piece of shit, appointed to office because

Bill Clinton ceded to and reinforced the idea that only Republicans can handle national defense issues. After being called a "Draft Dodger", Clinton felt he had to "prove" that he could "handle" things and told the world that a Republican would do the best job over in defense when he picked Cohen.

So Clinton basically bought into the meme himself, and in essence, announced it to the world.

What happened then?

Debacle in Somalia
Ignored 800,000 in Rwanda
Took on a Kosovo via an AIR WAR ONLY when ground troups would have been better for humanitarian reasons (and Advocating such brought Clark the boot from Cohen)!


Sorry, but let's not continue to advance the idea that Republicans are the ones that understand National Defense. If Dems do this, we lose in 2008.......again! :(


In addition, looks like it doesn't matter who is actually named Vice President according to many! :shrug:

Although I don't agree with this concept that who the VP doesn't matter.....I've noticed that since the 2004 General Election results showed that Edwards brought little assistance to John Kerry as VP in 2004.....yet many now want him on top of the ticket, it it said to not matter one eety beady iota! :sarcasm:

[WI_DEM]

23. depends who the democratic candidate is because a VP candidate

should try to bring strengths that the presidential nominee may have problems with.

[CatholicEdHead]

24. Fiengold when he runs with Kucinich

[Perky]

25. Wow. Now there ia s aticket that would appeal to swing Voters.

Unfortunately, given a choice between that ticket a a George Allen-led ticket. Allen would win in a walk. It not that your sentiment is wrong it is simply that a liberal-liberal ticket woud have very little appea to middle of the road voters.