What is your favorite ticket for 2004?

What's your number one ticket for the 2004 Presidential election? The pair that--for whatever reason--makes you say "That's the ticket!"

Here's mine:

Clark/Dean 2004

I believe this combination, with Clark running for Prez, and Dean for VP, would be quite literally unstoppable. Dean/Clark would have a great shot, Clark/anybody else would do well too.

But I think Clark/Dean could simply not be beat.

What's your favorite?

North and South. Both Viet Nam Vets.

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

use DU to gauge the national Democratic party's attitude toward Christianity or any other religion for that matter?

After lurking here for a year you would have all the Diebold information you needed to have to know that Max Cleland's senate seat was stolen by that chickenhawk Saxby Chambliss by voter machine manipulation. And that goes for that puke Sonny Purdue also.

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

I'm not a Wes or Dean person but I bet you don't really like any Democrats in the race. Maybe you'd like Zell Miller running?

My dream team(s) Dean/Clark

I'm pretty far left but its mostly on economic issues.

I am a Christian but I don't get religion mixed up in politics and I think others shouldn't either. If Judge Brown wants the ten commandments obelisk let him put it up in his church. c'mon. The gay rights thing is Ok fine do it if you want but don't have parades in drag. I'm with Dean on guns, beyond some federal limitations let the states work it out. The fact is NOBODY has ever proposed taking away anybody's guns (except for felons).

The social and cultural issues are a smokescreen used by the right wing to divert people from the fact that they are being systematically robbed.

I have one brother and one sister living in the South. I respect the South and my wife's a legitimate "daughter of the Confederacy".

One thing the Democrats can do (and I think Dean is on board with it) is let's let federalism work. There are a lot of problems that DON'T need Federal solutions. Like education and guns.

Similarly Frist's constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage is nuts. Why does he feel his marriage is threatened? A lesbian woman cuts my hair and my wife's and neither of us feels our marriage threatened.

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

Possibly Kerry/Edwards...

Can't help but notice how many times Clark turns up - almost on every response as either #1 or 2...

Is Clark the guy who can bring the Dems together - and lead them to the White House?

Maybe Dean, maybe Landrieu, heck, maybe even Gephardt to pick up some more midwestern votes. It depends. I want Clark to pick a VP he can work with and that will help win the election as well as bring along some good domestic policy experience.

Dean might be the best strategic choice, because he could probably win NH, solidify the base, and bring all the Deaniacs along. :) And he's a good guy too.

We have great senators here in WI and Feingold is one of the best in the country.

The IN YOUR FACE ticket!

Breaux's thinking of retiring this year....with a Democratic governor, he can be pretty confident that they will be able to vote in a new Democratic senator.

Breaux is advantageous for a number of reasons:
1. From the South.....with him on the ticket LA and AR are guaranteed, which means FL is not required.
2 Experienced in the legislative process and has been a senior on many relevant committees.
3. Is regarded as a moderate. As Wes Clark is actually more liberal than people give him credit for (pro abortion, anti patriot act, pro gays in the military). This would bullet proof the ticket from the "liberal label"....and would attract many independents and Fed up Republicans. Democrats would vote for the Dem ticket, so the aim has got to be at attracting the swing voters and nascar dads.
4. Two perceived as strong and vibrant healthy men on a ticket in a time of great uncertainty and war. Could be a good thing when compared to Bush/Cheney or Bush/Rice(heaven forbid). Patriotism will not be an issue.
5. Breaux is regarded as bipartisan...can work cross aisles to get things done. Clark is also perceived that way due to his military background.
6. This 100% southern ticket would definitely have coat-tails for those 4 southern Democratic senate seats that are at risk of becoming Republican seats. If those seats turn Republican, you can forget fillibusters. Then none of what has been promised could be realized. There would be so much gridlock instigated by the Repugs.....forget about any health care plan, forget rescinding tax cuts, forget just about everything that we might even hope for. We need those seats to remain Democratic.
7. Landrieu might also do. But she just won her seat...so I don't think that this is a reality.

That's how you win an election. Strategy. I't ain't about wanting Breaux there that much.....but man, that ticket would win hands down!

one of the quickest men I've ever seen, but he's also to the right of Genghis Khan. I think he would hurt any Democratic candidate by alienating the pro-choice and environmentalist voting blocs.

John Breaux opposes a woman's right to choose. He voted for drilling in the ANWR. Voted against McCain-Feingold. Voted to axe funding to the NEA. Would you want the Senate architect of the first of Bush's succesive waves of tax cuts only a heart beat away from the Presidency? North of the Mason-Dixon Line, John Breaux would be a Republican. If I wanted a Republican in the Vice President's office, I'd vote to reelect Cheney/Bush.

just thinking sheer strategy....

If that's the case though (I don't like "right"), then I would say Laudrieu. Same reasons....with a woman, that would actually be nicer.

I like Landrieu, but I don't find her tremendously impressive.

Why not Mark Warner or Roy Barnes (who despite being a loser is still enormously popular) or Max Cleland (ditto) or John Edwards?

Of those four, I'd personally choose either Warner or Barnes, since I'd think they'd have the most impact. Both Virginia and Georgia are winnable to a Democrat who gives a rat's ass about them, provided that Democrat isn't identified with the Northeast (the way Connecticut-raised Warner isn't).

If not Clark/Clinton... just kidding:).

..or why not Clark/Cleland?

N/T

because Dean has a better grasp of domestic policies and Clark could help in foreign policies such as going to Iraq to help calm things down there, and Dean can help fight for a better Medicare reform in Congress....

because Dean changed the tone of the Democratic Party with his success. Clark is coming on strong, and I welcome that!

he was awesome today!!!

I hate to say it, but war will be THE issue in '04. I think both Clark and Dean are very credible, but I think Clark may have an edge getting the swing vote due to his NATO experience. I also think he can win over a substantial military/military family vote which could land states like FL, VA & SC.

Another thing is a bit of conventional wisdom on Presidential campaigns. Some say the best ticket has the Pres candidate keeping on a positive message, "looking Presidential", while your VP candidate attacks the other guys. A Clark/Dean ticket would fit this model to a tee. Clark/Bush and Dean/Cheney debates would be pricless.

Either way, I am firmly in the ABB camp. And I am hopeful that a Clark/Dean ticket could take the House and Senate back from The Dark Side. And after all...that is critical if we are going to get anything done, regardless who wins.

or vice versa.

:D

can't rise beyond the level of personalities & "the horserace."

The type of commentary that these threads elicit ("I believe Smith/Jones is unbeatable, blah blah blah") is utterly unhelpful, & it also doesn't change from day to day (or month to month).

Why can't IDEAS, PRINCIPLES and POLICY ISSUES get a primary focus here?

At least 90% of the yapping on DU is now consumed by "candidate threads." Would you like to know why this is? It's because most people on DU are middle-class Americans, and this demographic group tends to be superficial self-obsessed imbeciles who can't penetrate beyond the concept of "Who will win." This doesn't even qualify as the kindergarten stage of developing a serious analysis.

I suggest that these wastes of time be limited to not more than a few times a week. In fact, I think candidate threads should be banned from GD altogether.

you asked.

Somebody had to do it :).

I'm a DKer; and I think Mary Landreau, after her tremendous stand in the Judicial filibuster ("I will NOT yield!) deserves as much of a chance as anybody.

That's the ticket!

unstopable.

so I am not willing yet to say "that's my ticket!" to any combination.

My decision will turn on one criterion only: who has the best chance to beat Bush next year. It's a practical choice.

I've narrowed my choices down to Dean, Gephardt, Clark, and Kerry, without ruling out Edwards if he shows some surprising strength soon. I just don't think the others have any chance of winning, no offense to them or their ideas or supporters.

At this moment, looking at the race from a national and Electoral College perspective, I have to say Gephardt has the best chance to win. It's close, I'm not committing to anything beyond supporting the nominee yet. But right now he seems to offer the best chance on a state-by-state basis.

Vice presidential nominees don't often win elections, although a bad choice can blow one. Nobody votes for the veep, except maybe people from his own state. You pick a veep to win one key state, or correct a deficiency in your candidate. LBJ carried Texas for JFK in 1960, so that worked out. Clinton took Gore for his foreign policy and Washington experience, that worked out. The Eagleton choice cost McGovern any chance he may have had, and Quayle hurt Bush in '88, but not enough.

Veep choices can be wise {Humphrey's choice of Muskie, or Dukakis of Bentsen}, foolish {Quayle}, bold {Ferraro, Kemp}, concilatory to the party establishment {Bush, Mondale}, or innocuous {Agnew}.

I would suggest trying for a key state, like Virginia with Warner, or Florida with Graham. Bayh might bring Indiana and Iowa.

This is based on the national campaign as I see it today, of course. A few weeks down the road, things could change.

Vice presidential nominees don't often win elections, although a bad choice can blow one. Nobody votes for the veep, except maybe people from his own state. You pick a veep to win one key state, or correct a deficiency in your candidate.

I think I agree with this, which is why Clark's potential would be wasted as a VP.

I don't think Dean would be interested in VP...JMHO.

Not ready to say who I want for VP. Still thinking on that one.

Clark/Dean is my favorite ticket. I agree with you, it would be unstoppable. I'd also like Dean/Clark.

I've changed my mind a lot over the course of the campaign, and I might still change my mind again.

A definite winner ! To bad Gore is not running ,at least not yet !

Unbeatable!

:dem:

Sorry, but Clark/Dean is the ticket of political neophytes. Clark brings a lot to the Dean ticket as a military man from the South. Dean brings practically nothing to the Clark ticket that the Democratic ticket does not have anyway.

If Dean is the nominee I put the odds at 3:7 Clark will be asked to fill the VP slot. If it's Clark, Dean is a 1:20 longshot.

How's that for VAGUE?! Maybe I too can be a republiKKKan some day if I'm vague enough!!!

Clark/Clinton
Dean/Clark
Dean/Clinton
Dean/Edwards
Gore/Dean
Dean/Graham
Clark/Moseley-Braun

And work permits for me and my family. I don't see anything but Scorched Earth being left in America post-bu$h.

:scared:
dbt

Clark/Dean or Clark/Graham.