Gary_Yngve Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 Assume it's McCain vs Obama. How would be the best VPs for each? Do you look for: a) uniting your party's base b) reaching across to moderates c) someone for 2016 Would Huckabee or Romney harm McCain election-wise as VP? Would Hillary harm Obama election-wise as VP? Would any contender be too stuck up (prez or nada) to be a VP? What about something bizarre? Colin Powell or Wesley Clark? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Conway Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 their wives. not really interested in seeing penetration from either though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 I can not see Hillary playing second fiddle to Obama under any circumstances. Also, I think she will fight to the death for her nomination and burn her bridges so to speak. I have no idea who that would leave, but I sure hope it's not Edwards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hendershot Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 I can not see Hillary playing second fiddle to Obama under any circumstances. Also, I think she will fight to the death for her nomination and burn her bridges so to speak. I have no idea who that would leave, but I sure hope it's not Edwards. I second that, Hilary is too butch to be anybody's number 2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary_Yngve Posted February 15, 2008 Author Share Posted February 15, 2008 Here's something truly bizarre: after a quick reading of the 22nd amendment, Hillary could be pres and Bill could be VP, and once elected, if Hillary were no longer Pres, then Bill could get promoted to Pres. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 Here's something truly bizarre: after a quick reading of the 22nd amendment, Hillary could be pres and Bill could be VP, and once elected, if Hillary were no longer Pres, then Bill could get promoted to Pres. Yes, but he would only be able to finish out that term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary_Yngve Posted February 15, 2008 Author Share Posted February 15, 2008 I can not see Hillary playing second fiddle to Obama under any circumstances. Also, I think she will fight to the death for her nomination and burn her bridges so to speak. I have no idea who that would leave, but I sure hope it's not Edwards. What about Gore as VP? or Sam Nunn? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marylou Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 I'm assuming Obama is going to pick Richardson or maybe Edwards, and McCain will pick Romney or Huckabee. I'd prefer Edwards as the AG, so hopefully it will be Richardson for the Ds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crux Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 Betting pool... who dey gonna pick? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 I can not see Hillary playing second fiddle to Obama under any circumstances. Also, I think she will fight to the death for her nomination and burn her bridges so to speak. I have no idea who that would leave, but I sure hope it's not Edwards. What about Gore as VP? or Sam Nunn? Do you think Gore would be VP again? For potentially 8 years? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 I'm assuming Obama is going to pick Richardson or maybe Edwards, and McCain will pick Romney or Huckabee. I'd prefer Edwards as the AG, so hopefully it will be Richardson for the Ds. I like Richardson. I hope that's who he goes with... if he gets the nomination. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary_Yngve Posted February 15, 2008 Author Share Posted February 15, 2008 I forgot about Richardson. He'd make a cool VP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 I forgot about Richardson. He'd make a cool VP. it might actually make sense, to help pick up more of the latino vote Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 Here's something truly bizarre: after a quick reading of the 22nd amendment, Hillary could be pres and Bill could be VP, and once elected, if Hillary were no longer Pres, then Bill could get promoted to Pres. Sounds like what Putin is doing in Russia except his wife isn't president. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirwoofalot Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 I remember it used to be the nominee would offer the position to the person he (she) defeated they in turn would decline and then the party nominee would announce who his running mate would be. In the 1960 election was going to be our very own S. Jackson. When JFK offered the position to LB Johnson he, Johnson, accepted. IMO, I think for the Socialist party, AKA the demes, they need to try to make themselves look to be moderates. So Obama needs someone to like T. Kennedy, a fat ole white man. For the GOP they need to convince the silent majority, AKA the Christian right to get out and vote. If the GOP can get the Christian right out then they have a very good chance to defeat Obama. However, if the GOP does not pick someone who the Christian right will accept then the It is most likely the Christian right will put up their own candidate and split the GOP and the Socialist would win in a land slide. But then again, even if the Socialist lose they can always claim they are what the people really wanted so we should never have any elections anyway, just have a few ‘super delegates’, but that is a different topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marylou Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 IMO, I think for the Socialist party, AKA the demes, they need to try to make themselves look to be moderates. So Obama needs someone to like T. Kennedy, a fat ole white man. Nope, no one's marginalizing the Dems any more. We gave the Rs a shot at running the place and they compleeeetely blew it. So think again! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sobo Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 For the GOP they need to convince the silent majority, AKA the Christian right to get out and vote. If the GOP can get the Christian right out then they have a very good chance to defeat Obama. However, if the GOP does not pick someone who the Christian right will accept then the It is most likely the Christian right will put up their own candidate and split the GOP and the Socialist would win in a land slide. The person that would fill that bill for the GOP exquisitely is Condoleeza Rice. Extremely intelligent, well-liked on Cap Hill, and an ardent church-goer (for those far-right-wing Christians). She counters both Hillary and Obama well for the race & gender equality issue that the Repubs are being stung with right now by the Dems. But of course, having been part of the Bush administration, she's got that Iraq War taint... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirwoofalot Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 If the Socialist put in a VP who is from the ‘Cut and Run’ mold trying to pull in the far left then they will only succeed in isolating themselves to the left; the socialist need to be looked as moderates in hopes to making the right look like they are extremist. I don’t think the GOP will choose either a women or a black as the VP running mate. It would look reactionary. I am not even sure CR would accept. The GOP is much too methodical for that. I don’t think having any link to the war on terror is going to be a minus. If the socialist try to use their rhetoric about her connection to the war on terror, then they, the Socialist, will be just making themselves look to be further left. The socialist can not afford to make themselves look any more liberal than they already are. So for the GOP maybe you are right and CR would be the best choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marylou Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 Uh, do you by chance watch a lot of Fox News? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirwoofalot Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 IMO, I think for the Socialist party, AKA the demes, they need to try to make themselves look to be moderates. So Obama needs someone to like T. Kennedy, a fat ole white man. Nope, no one's marginalizing the Dems any more. We gave the Rs a shot at running the place and they compleeeetely blew it. So think again! I don’t think you understand my point. Allow me to try again. There are basically three power groups here. The far left, the Christian right, and the moderates. The far left is the most unreliable in getting out to vote, the Christian right is by far the larges and most influential. That makes the moderates most needed by the Socialist. The Socialist party must show itself to be moderate, and not a bunch of screaming Howard Deans. If the Socialist can do that then they have a good chance to win the Presidency. If they fail at this then they have no chance. If the GOP can stay together and placate the Christina right then they have a very good chance to keep the Presidency regardless of what the Socialist do. The choice both sides make for their VP’s will determine to a lager extent how they fill these goals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirwoofalot Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 Uh, do you by chance watch a lot of Fox News? Nope. I sure do not watch fox news. Why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 Uh, do you by chance watch a lot of Fox News? Nope. I sure do not watch fox news. Why? that's the typical snide remark from a simpleton liberal who has nothing of substance to say Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirwoofalot Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 Hey, look it is only my opinion and I am the first to admit I can be wrong. I don’t think I can make my analysis any more clear. The Socialist need to look more moderate and the GOP needs to keep its base. If asking if I watch Fox News was an attempt at a put down them I sorry to report it missed the mark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 Hey, look it is only my opinion and I am the first to admit I can be wrong. ... If asking if I watch Fox News was an attempt at a put down them I sorry to report it missed the mark. as I said above... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZimZam Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 Uh, do you by chance watch a lot of Fox News? The way he classifies Democrats as Socialists, I think he watches the Fascist News Network. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.