No one votes for the VP

except the people in the VP's home state.

Let's say you're a green who is only interested in Kucinich. Now let's say the dems end up with a Zell MIller/Kucinich ticket. Kucinich is the VP, but the ticket espouses Miller's views since he won the nomination. Are you going to vote Zell Miller/Kucinich? Probably not. No on votes for the VP.

A bad VP will hurt the ticket. But the gains from a good VP choice are arguable. It serves to balance the ticket a bit, and brings in a swing state (the VP's homestate and none other).

The people who voted for Bush/Cheney didn't say they liked Gore over Bush but decided to go with Cheney (at least none that I know of). No one votes for the VP.

That is why I find it strange that people who think voters will vote for Clark but not Dean will all of a sudden vote or a Dean/Clark ticket. No one votes for the VP.

At the end of the day, the voter matches the Dem Nominee against Bush, not the Dem Nominee's VP. And in the post September 11th world, no matter how we wish to change the debate, the that nominee better stack up to Bush on national security and foreign policy. Only then will the voters listen to our dometic policy attacks.

Am I advocating making the election solely about national security and foreign policy? No. But if our nominee (not his VP) can't qualify over the hurdle on this issue with his credibility, the voters won't even listen to our domestic policy concerns. Tacking on a 4 star general for a VP won't work. No one votes for the VP.

Just as a green won't vote for a Zell Miller/Kucinich ticket, the disaffected republicans who like Clark but would not vote for Dean will not vote for a Dean/Clark ticket. Any disaffected republican votes or southern state votes(other than Arkansas) that Dean earns will need to be earned without Clark. No one votes for the VP.

The security moms and military families and southerns that would vote for Clark (over Bush) but not Dean (over Bush) will not vote for a Dean/Clark ticket.

Does that mean a ticket with Dean at the top is doomed? Not necessarily, but it does mean the he won't get any swing voters that would vote Clark but not Dean.

No one votes for the VP. And that is why Clark should not be the VP.

We need Clark at the top of the ticket.

George Bush's chances of getting elected shot UP when he chose Cheney as a running mate. Wyoming alone did not make the difference.

Would you vote Bush/Kucinich?

Media said Lon won the debate.

Not Cheney over Gore. No one votes for the VP.

I agree with you NSMA. Cheney and Powell reassured voters that the moron had a good team behind him on foreign policy. It took away the argument that he lacked experience. Of course, it was all spin and completely wrong, but it worked on many voters.

He's too weak of a candidate. I agree with your assessment completely.

It is not a safer place at all. I hope Dean does not say that. The world is not a safer place.

and called Russia the Soviet Union FOUR times in one interview....

And as a General- Clark made his statement primarily to support and encourage morale in the troops.

But of course, since Dean's inadequacy in Foreign Affairs is so obvious, you are lashing out....

Anytime a murderous dictator is out of the way, the world is safer to some extent.

Now we have to get our own murderous dictator out of the way.

:dem:

I think you just hit on a major point of difference. I'm not interested in a democratic candidate who tries to appeal to the disaffected republicans. I'd much rather have a democratic candidate who appeals to the disaffected democrats.

Disaffected republicans, disaffected Dems, disaffected anything -- you need to get over the national security/foriegn policy hurdle first. Only then will they listen to the domestic policy attacks.

I think we have some who do: Clark, Edwards, Kerry.

Eyes on the REAL prize.

There are 2 approaches to choosing a VP- micropolitics and macropolitics. Al Gore was Micro- Clinton just wanted to be sure that he could carry Tennessee, thought it might have had a spillover effect in say, Georgia. (Though Zell Miller's endorsement of Clinton counted more- oh how the tables have turned.)

Lieberman, however, mas Macro. Gore didn't need Connecticut per se, he needed Orthodox Jewish votes, throughout the northeast and in Florida.

Clark would also be macro- helping Dems with the security image, but also would probably carry his home state.

I'm saying no one votes for the VP. In the end, they're going to match the dem nominee against Bush, not the dem nominee's VP.

Those who voted for Clinton, voted for Clinton, not Gore. Do you think the fact that Zell Miller's endorsement of Clinton means the southerners would have voted for <insert northeast antigun/pro-gay/pro-choice liberal here>/Gore if Zell had endorsed the dem nominee?

No, they won't vote for the VP. And this is not a replay of Clinton vs. Bush 1. Post September 11th, our Dem Nominee (not his VP) needs to be able to pay the cover charge of national security/foreign policy credentials in order to get through the door. Only then can he attack Bush on domestic policy and have people listen.

or at least can have an effect. The clinton campaign didnt ask anyone to consider gore much. If playing up the VP helps the ticket, it will be done, and people will consider it when voting. People can and will vote considering the VP in thier decisions when the situation calls for it.

vote for a Bush/kucinich ticket no matter how Rove played up Kucinich?

you are using extreme examples. Of course not, but who cares, no one is suggesting a Bush Kucinich Ticket. You are arguing from extremes.

A kucinish supporter is certainly going to be motivated to vote for a Democrat/Kucinich ticket. He could be used as the VP to reach out to progressives. Im not sure that politically that makes any difference though.

The prime examples, at the moment, would be dean and clark. Both carry with them tools that could help win a general election as a VP on a ticket.

Now please present some cogent argument that supports your stance that the VP must by neccessity have no effect on a campaign. The Bush/Kucinich example proves absolutely nothing.

My argument is not that the VP has no effect. But that those effects are marginal and questionable. Ultimately, the voters will be comparing the Nominee to the sitting president, not the VP to the sitting president. And in that comparison, the nominee (not his VP) must be able to meet the foreign policy/national security threshold in order to have his domestic attacks considered.

The nominee (not his VP) is vying for the title of Commander-in-Chief in a post September 11th world. It's a job interview.

Think if you're hiring a secretary. You may be interested in that person's filing and organizational skills, interpersonal skills, etc. But unless the applicant can meet the threshold of being able to type, you won't consider that person. Having typing skills (foreign policy/national security) doesn't mean that person will get the job. You'll still consider the personal communications skills, organizational filing skills, etc. (Domestic policy) when deciding between applicants. But you will not consider them if the threshold isn't met.

That threshold that cannot be pawned off the the VP in a post September 11th world is national security and foreign policy.

you are arguing that the VP spot plays little role past the Veeps home state. Your only backup for that argument so far is past elections and arguments from extremes. Neither are very strong arguments.

I hate to break it to you, but people think of many many many many more things than just comparing the two candidates for president for the job. Thats simply how the vote goes. An aweful lot of factors go into which of the two people SEE as best for the job. The VP can certainly be used to convince people to see one pres candidate as better than the other.

It isnt a job interview, its an election. Its about image and perception. Your hiring comparison is entirely irrellevant. People dont sit down with resumees to decide which president to hire. People go about thier daily life, watch commercials, read newspapers, etc and are motivated to vote or not vote, and to vote for one ticket or another.

There is no reason that the VP position could not be used to have even a strong effect on how people vote. Just because it hasnt been used that way in recent memory does not prove that it could not be used that way. And anyway, Bush definately used Cheney to his advantage in 2000. He acted as the everyman, while Chaney could look like the super experienced guy.

You have made a fairly hard to defend statement in this thread, not that the VP is generally irrellevent, but that it must be the case that it is. You havent backed up that argument at all.

Just because it hasnt been used that way in recent memory does not prove that it could not be used that way

I suppose we'll see. You do make a valid point that just because people haven't voted for the VP doesn't mean it won't happen.

The VP is not irrelevant, but I contend that in a post September 11th world, the NOMINEE needs to be able to pass a national security threshold. And that this threshold can't be glossed over by a VP. I believe people will not vote for a Nominee weak on national security, if his VP isn't. I may be wrong.

People who see a candidate as poor on foriegn policy will not think them suddenly good on foriegn policy because the VP is seen as strong, but if the lack of foriegn policy is holding them back from voting for the dem, who they want to vote for, but are afraid that he lacks the foriegn policy skills. A VP seen as skilled in foriegn policy and marketed properly could give those people an excuse to vote dem. "I dont like Bush, but Im just afraid that Dean is too soft on foriegn policy for this crazy world." Is probably an attitude wed see alot of in a Bush/Dean election. Putting Clark on the ticket as VP could certainly have a large effect on that attitude. "Well Dean is weak on foriegn policy, but with a general at his side, whom he says he will rely on greatly in foriegn policy matters, im less worried about the repercussions of putting him in office, so I dont feel so scared into voting for Bush"

Defense, after 9/11, is one of them.

no text

is my guess. I'm thinking the Democratic emphasis will be with the war on terror, re-enlisting our allies in an internat'l effort, and Homeland Security.

I don't think Clark, a political novice has any advantage in this type of fight. But I believe we've got a warrior in Dean. When Dean gets through with Bush, he should have 56%+ of the country thinking W is soft on national security.

Dean is the one who's a novice on the international front. Clark already knows Chirac and Blair and has met and spoken with them on a personal basis. He's the one best positioned to advance this line of attack on Bush.

I'm speaking of strategy and skill: this is a political campaign.

Look at his rankings, and then consider the fact that he's only been the race a few weeks and doing better than those who have been in for over a year.

Look at the way he positioned himself with New American Patriotism. That's very good strategy. He's forced Bush to attack Patriotism in order to attack democratic policies. His blog's internet traffic already exceeds that of Dean's, according to Alexa.

His stump has improved significantly since he started. He is able to show compassion (tears in his eyes on national tv with Dan Rather), and able to fight like hell (wrestling the interview back from Fox and ripping the reporter to shreds for trying to smear him on air). I trust his learning curve. If he's able to come so far, exceed those who have started months before him, after such little time, imagine what he'll be like in November.

And this is just in reference to his campaigning skills. He is definitely new to campaigns. But his political skills have been honed through SACEUR and CinC, where he hand to wrestle with people in Europe and the Pentagon, being part of both commands and independent from them. He has haggled with ambassadors and heads of states of foreign nations over treaty wording, spoken with congressional delegations trying to weedle money for families of troops, etc. If that's not political skill, I'm not sure what is.

You would have a point that his campaigning skills are developing, but his political skills have been around a bit. And I think his campaigning skills are improving quite well, under the spotlight.

especially in his 'above the fray' stance. Who knows, he may succeed and capture the nomination.

who didn't see a large difference between Bush and Gore, and voted for Bush because he had Cheney on the ticket.

I argued that the Supreme Court was more important than the Veep, but to no avail.

the VP would make a big difference if people don't see a significant difference between Bush and Dean. I would venture that is not the case.

the extent that the general public feels that "all politicians are the same" Gore and Bush were pretty freakin different people, they got lumped together pretty easily. Dean isnt exactly that far off from Gore. Btw, assuming Dean is the candidate doesnt really make any sense at this point.

Meanwhile what the Bush Gore example proves is that you are wrong. Given the right circumstances, the VP position can effect the way the general public votes. Are you conceding that now? And I dont think it takes much difficulty to assume that if they would consider VP important in one situation, they could consider it important in another situation that wasnt identical.