Democratic Vice-Presidential Candidate

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by MrFun
I try to elect the politician that is the cleanest mudball.

If that's true, why are you supporting Kerry over Edwards? Kerry has tons more sleaze in his closet, just by virtue of his having been around much longer in politics than Edwards.

To date, Edwards is virtually untarnished by mud.

[MrFun]

The problem with Edwards is that he does not have as great of a chance for nomination as Kerry.

[Boris Godunov]

Which then means this:

"I try to elect the politician that is the cleanest mudball"

Is a lie, correct?

[MrFun]

If Edwards had the same high level of support that Kerry has, I would support Edwards, since I do agree with most of Edwards positions on a number of issues.

However, Kerry also has some excellent proposals, and while he may be more corrupt, he has the greater level of support.

I got to leave for an evening class in 10 minutes, so when I get back, I can be more specific on which issues I agree on, with both candidates to elaborate my reason more.

[Boris Godunov]

That didn't answer the question. You explicitely stated that you support candidates based on them being less corrupt, but when it's pointed out that a candidate running is less corrupt than the one you support, you say you won't support the other because he isn't as viable. Don't you see how that means you don't really base your support on mud, but on viability?

[MrFun]

So you make the claim that voters make a decision only on one exclusive factor to the exclusion of all other factors?

Voters cannot make a decision based on prioritizing to what extent a candidate is corrupt, in relation to who is most viable?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by MrFun
So you make the claim that voters make a decision only on one exclusive factor to the exclusion of all other factors?

Voters cannot make a decision based on prioritizing to what extent a candidate is corrupt, in relation to who is most viable?

Where did I make any such claim? You made the claim, when I asked, that you pick your candidates based on them having the least amount of mud on them. You neither itemized a list nor prioritized any criteria. You just gave one thing.

But then you contradict yourself and pick a candidate who has more mud. So why didn't you just say, in the first place, that your primary criterion is that you think they're electable?

I suspect it's because you want to convince people that you're mostly concerned with integrity, but you're not fooling anyone.

[MrFun]

Ok -- I prioritize viability over a candidate's corruption.

[Capt Dizle]

I think all the talk of a Kerry running mate is premature. Edwards still has a good shot at this thing.

Kerry may have peaked in terms of popular support. Despite his victory in Oklahoma Clark nearly dropped out and Dean will be gone soon. Their supporters have to go somewhere and I think from this point out Edwards will begin to pick up the majority of undecided and disenfranchised voters. The economy and jobs issues are currently running very high and Edwards is going to sell those better than Kerry. Edwards has low unfavorables and low familiarity rates which can translate into a rapid unexpected surge of support.

I think that between now and March 3 America will take one last deep breath and make a final decision and I think Edwards could be the beneficiary.

One little misstep at this point and Kerry is toast.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Edwards still has a good shot at this thing.

Not really. He's still a longshot.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
I think all the talk of a Kerry running mate is premature. Edwards still has a good shot at this thing.

Kerry may have peaked in terms of popular support. Despite his victory in Oklahoma Clark nearly dropped out and Dean will be gone soon. Their supporters have to go somewhere and I think from this point out Edwards will begin to pick up the majority of undecided and disenfranchised voters. The economy and jobs issues are currently running very high and Edwards is going to sell those better than Kerry. Edwards has low unfavorables and low familiarity rates which can translate into a rapid unexpected surge of support.

I think that between now and March 3 America will take one last deep breath and make a final decision and I think Edwards could be the beneficiary.

One little misstep at this point and Kerry is toast.

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??

[Ned]

Originally posted by Mordoch

I think you're being wildly pessamistic about Kerry's chances. Furthermore, Kerry absolutely doesn't need to win most of the Southern states. Just winning Florida would do the trick, and winning two Southern states would be absolutely great. While a few might try arguing otherwise, I'd argue that the California is a lock for a Democratic candidate, and most of the Northeast is as well. (An interesting question is whether Kerry can potentially win New Hampshire this time.)

California a lock for the Dems? Did you witness what happened recently with the recall of the Democrat governor and the election of Schwarzennegger? The Dems are not popular with the people at the moment and anything is possible here.

[randomturn]

Kerry is going to get slaughtered. I project 400 electoral votes for Bush.

Well at 370 I am showing Kerry with 12 states. I know, it's not likely that he will win that many but, if you think the stiff can get 13 take the bet.

you are a total wus!
Are you going to stand by the 400 or not? If not, then stop talking so much crap.

[Boris Godunov]

Schwarzenegger's win in CA is in no way an indication of any boon for the GOP there. He was running against Davis' unpopularity, not the Democrats in general. Californians have plenty to be angry at Bush about. Schwarzenegger is also not very "Republican," as he is radically socially liberal compared to Bush.

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Ned
California a lock for the Dems? Did you witness what happened recently with the recall of the Democrat governor and the election of Schwarzennegger? The Dems are not popular with the people at the moment and anything is possible here.

Yes I did, what was significant was how Schwarzennegger came close to running as a liberal. Basicly he relied on his Kennedy connection through his wife, and generally avoided any really conservative positions. He even initially picked Warren Buffet as his advisor who promptly started talking about how taxes were too low! His platform was not even remotely as close to being as convervative as Bush is.

The fact it was a special recall election meant that generally only the people angry at Grey Davis actually came out to vote, a group much more likely to vote Republican. A general election is a somewhat different story.

[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