Is this possible? (Dean + Kerry)

Dean and Kerry are the #1 and #2 fundraisers and most popular canidates (IMHO), respectably. Now, I ask this: Why can they not join forces and have one be the running mate of the other (I see it being Dean being RM to Kerry, but who knows), combining their financial resources and skills? That would be a goddamn powerful 1-2 punch, IMO and would combine both mainstream (rank and file Dems) with grassroot level participation.
That would be a DREAM campaign to me, and would enable both camps to not lose face. They'd be working together for the good of the nation.
Thoughts?

BUT, work with me here, IF egos could be put aside COULD this matchup be the force needed to take Bush Inc down?
I've seen the egos of the Dean AND Kerry backers- if we put as much energy working together instead of blasting the other canidate, then jesus...I believe we would not only defeat Bush, we would crush him Reagan style.

regionally by the second candidate. I don't think these two would run strong together across the country.

Dean and Clark. ;)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I care what you think, all though we seldom agree.

You can't have two New Englanders on the ticket.

.... gotta have some balance, traditionally ....


:hippie:

Not very good demographics for a national campaign.

Dean/Clark or Dean/Edwards would be better.

Two Texas Oil Men, did it :(

Oh, sure, Cheney claimed he was a Wyoming resident.

It's not a good mix.

It would be one or the other admitting some of their core beliefs aren't all that much of a core belief.

You have to pick someone who reaffirms your identity. Kerry-Clark would make sense. (But, if Edwards isn't on the top of the ticket, the nominee would be mad not to pick him.)

I have no idea who reaffirms Dean's core identity. Perhaps, Ron Paul.

but it's a bad idea all around. Especially with Dean at the top.

and they picked them for the same reason -- because the unatractive, unappealing person who could never get elected, but was the true power -- the man behind the curtain -- had to ride in on the coattails of someone charismastic and electable.

JFK picked LBJ because LBJ was the master of the senate and could weild a lot of power within the political machine. Reagan picked Bush because he was the real power behind the RW machine.

I'm nost surprised that both those presidents got shot at in their first terms in office.

Having said that, I don't think anybody running this year is the "real power", which is why nobody will be picking anyone else who doesn't affirm their basic political philosophies.

For example, if national security weren't a problem this year, Debbie Stabenow or the governor, Ruth Ann Miner, of DE would be the perfect running mates for Edwards.

you really are off onto that dean as a closet libertarian thing...

more on point, I read your description of this earlier and spent some time thinking about it. Not about the 'core philosophies' aspect, but the finding the angle that one is trying to amplify, and have it amplified by the running mate. A completely revolutionary idea in modern campaigns - with the Clinton/Gore ticket.

For a couple of different reasons, I see Graham as a very potent running mate for Kerry or for Clark. Though in your current assessment (core philosophy match) there might be a lesser match with Kerry/Graham. But for Kerry, Graham accenuates the strength on foreign policy (at least from an intel angle), and a high level of integrity. Graham also emphasizes past statewide governing experience.

LBJ and GhwB had the taint too, but it didn't matter 'cause (1) the number one on the ticket had all the charsima needed to win, and (2) becaue they were the real powers who were going to deliver the machine.

I think there is a strong presumption against a primary loser getting the VP nod (unless, of course, it's Edwards, 'cause I think he's the best person running, and the only reason he isn't on fire is becuase the media ignores him, and getting a VP nod would be the best way to force the Edwards hand on the public).

By the way, Dean came out of the libertarian closet at that Cato Inst talk. Why does everyone think he's in the closets (social liberal, fiscal conservative, who wants the Cato Inst to like him? Where's the closet?). But I'm glad you picked up on the humour. The Ron Paul think was tongue-in-cheek.

but I do find your take on it (and little reminders) to be humorous.

I see your point about Graham (and I first came up with the idea after your raised the "vp as amplifier of the characteristic (strength) intended to be stressed in pres candidate" issue, Graham was still running). Not sure the "loser" will stick, as much as he isn't MR Charisma - and without charisma at the top.... doesn't add much. (EG as much as I was behind Gore, he isn't Mr Charisma... and Lieberman didn't add that spark.)

Sadly, while I think we do have some very fine candidates (including your favorite social libertarian ;-) ), there isn't a whole lot of charisma there. But Bush doesn't have charisma - nor did his Dad, nor Carter - so Charisma isn't a prereq (but it helps!) The exception seems to be Mr Showboat (come on - I love Sharpton - but he has been a showboater)... and your fave - Sen. Edwards. Don't know that Graham would add much to Edwards. (But for some reason - I really like Graham up near the top - he is more centrist than I - but have followed his career from the governorship to the senate. He is wonkish (sorry - I like my leaders to "GET" policy! including that even "Good" sounding policy has down sides and one best hear those downsides before deciding anything), he has integrity, and he seems to see the "big picture" thing. But he barely surpasses the charisma level of Gov Davis. His campaign never had a chance.

Curious, in your mind, who runs well with Edwards.

Oh - for irony - the one man I hope NEVER is selected as VP but I fear will be appealing to some... is also a centrist former Governor now Senator - but one with NO sense of policy, and little intellectual integrity - but he can work this states money class (for campaigns) like a pro... Fortunately his stock may be declining, as the chair of a policy/strategy group his influence is in decline isn't quite as desirable as he might have been a year ago.

• Don't limit Dean's libertarianism to his social policies.
  
  "You folks at Cato," he told us, "should really like my views because I'm economically conservative and socially laissez-faire." Then he continued: "Believe me, I'm no big-government liberal. I believe in balanced budgets, markets, and deregulation. Look at my record in Vermont." He was scathing in his indictment of the "hyper-enthusiasm for taxes" among Democrats in Washington.
  
  http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/073ylkiz.asp
  
  He's talking bout economics there.
  
  
  
• I think Edwards runs well with people who worked hard to come up out of the working and lower middle class.
  

because that would never, ever happen.

Not that either of them are not going to get crushed in the south and almost all of rural america anyway, particularly Dean, but neither would nominate somebody who is another upper-class Yalie from an the other most liberal democratic state in the country,

not to mention they hate each other

BTW, Yankees suck

Quite extensively at that. I momentarily forgot why having 2 NEers is not a good idea..Thank goodness for DU to keep me on track.

I realized that Dean and Kerry are like Patton and Montegomery(if you know about WWII, you will catch my drift), this was also before Kucinich to my knowledge, and I dont have a problem with two new englanders, Clinton and Gore were unique as two southerners. You know come to think of it we havent had a president from the midwest in a while, last one was ummmmmmmm Truman I think, could be wrong though.

as in polarly opposite.

We could nominate 2 southernors again, it's what works best. And nominating Northerers, particularly northerners from the most liberal new england states is what works worst in 2003.

If this were 1903, when the GOP was the dominant New England party and the dems were the dominant southern party, then the dems nominating a Vermonter and a baystater would make sense

I dont care really where the candiate is from. Of course but the more important thing is that the two really are the kinda guys that would be president not one Pres and on VP, not a good arguement I know but I swear those two are like Patton and Monty heh. I havent taken political science either. Was I right when I said Truman was the last midwestern president.

Reagan and Bush detested each other and said far worse things than Dean and Kerry have said. They were also farther apart philosophically at the time than Dean and Kerry. For instance in 1980, Bush was presenting himself as being pro-choice, pro-ERA, against The Reagan tax cuts ("Voodoo economics") and defender of such things as the Panama Canal Treaties and China Recogntion which Reagan opposed.

They wound up on the same ticket.

we don't hear much about that one anymore do we.

but they GOP would kill them on the New England thing. Now, maybe if Kerry could show that he had ancestors from Georgia that were slave owners they'd have a chance. Now, when the revolution comes and New England is a seperate country maybe the 2 of them can rule.

Media is working hard to trash all of them, especially Clark. I can't watch cable anymore. It drives me nuts to hear the day-in day-out snide remarks about Democrats and pro-Bush lines.

Let's not get carried away on this "balance" thing.
The real issue is Life Insurance.

JFK had LBJ to "balance the ticket". See where it got him!
Gore would have met the same fate, had the election not been stolen,
and Lieberman would have started the PNAC wars.

Clinton/Gore wasn't balance, it was life insurance! So was Carter/Mondale.

On the other side, how else can one explain Nixon/Agnew or Bush/Quayle?

When someone from the Northeast is on the ticket.

Two southerners can run and nobody speaks about it.

Two people from the west, or midwest can run and nobody says anything.

But heaven forbid two Northeasterns run - well, the sky is gonna fall down.

Just another example of Northeast bias. And people wonder why a Southern-bashing thread pops up on this board every few months.

I agree.

Dean and Kerry would be a powerful ticket and the geography won't play at all except with bigots who wouldn't vote Democratic anyway.

Great team!

I can not imagine either Kerry or Dean being VP to the other one. Yes, such a thing did happen once (JFK & LBJ) but that was one in a million, I think.

I uspect that the national party (DNC) will do their best to sidestep Dean altogether. So what if he could beat bush??? This is politics, for God's sake!!!!

And I don't think it would be a dream campaign.