The VP grid all laid out. - Democratic Underground

Lex

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jul-28-08 07:57 PM
Original message

The VP grid all laid out.

As seen at one of my favorite sites: http://www.electoral-vote.com/

:shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

hedgehog

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jul-28-08 08:00 PM
Response to Original message

1. What if Obama shocks us all and picks someone from outside

politics? Change we can believe in, indeed!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

saltpoint

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jul-28-08 08:03 PM
Response to Original message

2. Jesus, who wrote the brief assessment lines? Ann Coulter?

This is hogwash.

Really. It sounds like Ann Coulter, Bill Kristol, the Swiftbot Liars, and Pat Buchanan all sat down to describe Democrats.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Lex

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jul-28-08 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #2

3. He's a Democrat.

I think he's just trying to be straight-up about what the perception is.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

saltpoint

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jul-28-08 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #3

4. Well, I'd like to punch him in the face.

Why isn't there an Upside column?

Jesus.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Lex

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jul-28-08 08:08 PM
Response to Reply #4

8. Well, I guess we are free to do our own site like we'd want.

Here's his FAQ:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Info/general-faq.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

saltpoint

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jul-28-08 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #8

9. I'll pass, thanks. If this guy's a Democrat, who needs Republicans?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Lex

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jul-28-08 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #9

12. Ha! We should see what actual Republicans say

I'm guessing this would be mighty tame.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Radical Activist

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jul-28-08 08:07 PM
Response to Original message

5. Might antagonize Clinton supporters?

Was she a candidate or a cult leader? I have a hard time believing there are that many women who really want a woman candidate but will be offended if it isn't her highness Hillary.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

patrice

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jul-28-08 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #5

10. agree

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

iconicgnom

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jul-28-08 11:06 PM
Response to Reply #5

35. totally agree -- that's a canard.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

davidpdx

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jul-29-08 12:33 AM
Response to Reply #5

41. I do think Hillary supporter will get pretty pissed if Obama

chooses a woman. Granted I have always been an Obama supporter and never supported her, but this is my perception of the situation.

There is likely going to be some backlash if he chooses a woman. I think given the fact this will be the first minority president, I doubt he's going to pick a woman though. That much I can agree with you.

Then again, we may get a total surprise from him. You never know.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

phillysuse

(683 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jul-28-08 08:08 PM
Response to Original message

6. Where's Blanche Lincoln?

A longshot, 10 years in the Senate, 6 in the House. Might antagonize Hillary but would bring Arkansas with her. Looks good, agriculture, energy and rural America expert.
And the name is golden - the bumper sticker Obama/Lincoln is terrific.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

newmajority

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jul-28-08 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #6

11. At a DLC meeting, comparing records of voting against the party with Mary Landrieu?

Just a guess? :shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

newmajority

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jul-28-08 08:08 PM
Response to Original message

7. So their only objection to Richardson is basically, "racists won't like it"??

But racists wouldn't vote for Obama in the first place.

OBAMA/RICHARDSON 2008!!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Tikki

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jul-28-08 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #7

16. OBAMA/RICHARDSON 2008! And if all they have...

about Schweitzer is that he is an unknown...well, no better way to get to know
him than have him run as VP.

Tikki

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Radical Activist

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jul-28-08 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #7

19. That's why I like Obama/Feingold.

Just put a black guy and a liberal Jew on the same ticket. Make their heads explode.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Alexander

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jul-28-08 11:35 PM
Response to Reply #19

40. I agree 100%.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

newmajority

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jul-29-08 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #19

44. As much as I'd like to watch bigots heads exploding

I don't think two senators on a ticket will win. Even a good senator like Feingold. :evilfrown:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Faygo Kid

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jul-28-08 08:10 PM
Response to Original message

13. Methinks this is more tongue in cheek than meant to be taken seriously.

I for one found it funny. But I'm mean.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Lex

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jul-28-08 08:14 PM
Response to Reply #13

14. Pithy analysis of each, certainly.

Not everyone agrees of course.

I don't think it's meant to be tongue in cheek, or at least I don't take his site that way.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Sparkly

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jul-28-08 08:15 PM
Response to Original message

15. "Wesley Clark: Poor Campaigner" is a meme NOT supported by the FACTS!!!

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Radical Activist

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jul-28-08 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #15

20. I'm surprised there haven't been a lot more posts like yours.

Clark is popular around here but I agree with the OP. But, Obama has enough charisma for both of them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Sparkly

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jul-28-08 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #20

22. My letter to the "votemaster"

"Wesley Clark is a poor campaigner" has become "Common Wisdom" but is not supported by facts. General Clark entered the 2000 race late, yet he raised more money than any other candidate except Howard Dean, and he raised it much faster. None of the other candidates won more states than Clark, except Kerry, of course. Before Iowa, he was polling second in New Hampshire (ahead of Kerry) and first and second in most of the early primary states.

His late entrance precluded campaigning in Iowa, and the surprising momentum for Kerry and Edwards after that state's caucuses blew *everybody* away. That, and his decision to drop out early on and campaign for Kerry, certainly do NOT translate into "Wesley Clark is a poor campaigner."

Please consider rejecting that bit of "Common Wisdom."

I should have said "before Iowa" after "raised more money." But I could have said a lot more, too.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Radical Activist

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jul-28-08 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #22

23. What states did Clark win?

Edwards won more states than Clark. I didn't think Clark won any except a near tie in OK.

Clark's poll numbers were highest the day he announced and only went down. Sorry, but those facts along with his uncompelling speaking style do support the argument that he's a poor campaigner. Every campaign has excuses but if he were a good campaigner he would have done better.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Sparkly

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jul-28-08 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #23

25. He won Oklahoma.

His numbers were excellent -- until Iowa! (So were Dean's -- was he a "bad campaigner?") As for "uncompelling speaking style," I guess that's a matter of opinion. I think he's a terrific speaker.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Radical Activist

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jul-28-08 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #25

26. Until Iowa

Meaning when people started voting. Yeah, a razor thin victory in one state isn't very impressive. He has never shown he can get elected to any office.
Dean had his own problems.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Sparkly

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jul-28-08 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #26

27. They all got mowed down after Iowa -- even those who ran there.

Doesn't mean they were "bad campaigners."

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

karynnj

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jul-28-08 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #23

28. Edwards only won SC and NC - and NC was really just a favorite son

thing - as the vote was well after Kerry clinched the nomination. The fact is that Kerry won all but 4 states - 2 to Edwards, 1 to Dean, and 1 to Clark.

There is really no reason to declare Clark a poor candidate if you don't do so for Edwards and Dean. The only one who did very well in the 2004 primaries was Kerry.

Here is a chart that will show you that Kerry's states were not close - http://www.rhodescook.com/primary.analysis.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Sparkly

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jul-28-08 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #28

29. I stand corrected that Edwards won two states -- I'd thought only one.

He stayed in a long time though, even though Clark won the most 2nd places in the February 3 states. Clark also beat him in New Hampshire.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

karynnj

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jul-28-08 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #29

33. True Edwards stayed in until Kerry nearly mathematically

eliminated him - with many states left in the first week of March.

Edwards had allies in the media pushing him well beyond when he could win. There was even an op-ed in the NYT the week before Kerry clinched that spoke of knowing the nominee was "John" but it could be either. This was written even though at that point Edwards had won 1 stste and Kerry 16 states and Kerry was ahead by about 20 plus points in NY, MA, and CA -three big states voting the next week. It then went on and made the case for Edwards.

North Carolina was a caucus held on April 17 - a month after Kerry had clinched the nomination.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Radical Activist

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jul-28-08 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #28

30. His poll numbers were best the week he announced.

You can make excuses all day long but there's no rational way to argue that someone who has never been elected to any office and a campaign that was never even considered likely to win was a good one. Even Kucinich won the Maine caucus and finished ahead of Clark in a couple states.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Sparkly

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jul-28-08 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #30

34. I think that's an "excuse."

Kucinich was in it almost to the end.

I think the fact that Clark was a newcomer to "retail politics" makes his showing even more astonishing. He never campaigned before, yet he was in the top tier the whole time he was in it, had a good organization, raised plenty of money, and knew his stuff. His abilities on the campaign trail also put him in demand for Kerry and other candidates in both 2004 and 2006.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Radical Activist

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jul-28-08 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #34

39. How is it astonishing to do no better than tie in one primary? Astonishingly bad?

By what measure did he have a good organization? Few took him seriously as a top tier candidate for long despite all the media hype before he got in the race. The results speak for themselves. Obviously a lot of people on DU liked him but the general public didn't.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

karynnj

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jul-28-08 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #30

37. Kuchinich did NOT win the Maine caucus

Kerry did - he had 44% of the vote, Kuchinich had 10% - it was on February 8th. I was NOT arguing that Clark was a good campaigner - but the fact is that NONE of the candidates did all that well in the 2004 primaries other than Kerry.

http://www.rhodescook.com/primary.analysis.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Radical Activist

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jul-28-08 11:24 PM
Response to Reply #37

38. But most of them did better than Clark.

This whole argument is silly.

My memory failed me with Kucinich so thanks for correcting me.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

BlackmanX

(96 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jul-28-08 08:28 PM
Response to Original message

17. there's only 3 real choices

Obama needs to either pick Kaine, Richardson, or Bayh and get it over with already. The other people on this list are a joke.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Born_A_Truman

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jul-28-08 09:27 PM
Response to Original message

18. Shaking my head

I didn't care for "never married, had cancer"

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Radical Activist

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jul-28-08 09:39 PM
Response to Reply #18

21. Yeah, WTF?

There's some not so latent sexism in that chart, including the idea that hysterical women will be outraged if any other woman than Hillary is on the ticket.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Lex

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jul-28-08 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #18

24. "incurable verbal diarrhea"

isn't too great either, but I don't think he was going for sensitivity here evidently

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

iconicgnom

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jul-28-08 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #18

36. What about herpes? Not fair, doesn't herpes count?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

davidpdx

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jul-29-08 12:37 AM
Response to Reply #18

42. I agree, that's in poor taste

Her cancer might also be in remission which would take that concern off the table. I'd assume if she is governor then she must be in pretty good health. I don't know much about her though.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

karynnj

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jul-28-08 10:50 PM
Response to Original message

31. Well, you seemed to have ruled out almost everybody -

If nothing else this shows how tough people are on Democratic candidates. For example, Daschle lost in SD in a year where the Republicans were helped by 911 - in addition, there was cheating (it's a long time ago, but I believe it was disenfranchising some Native Americans. He is very smart,and a classy guy - and an early Obama supporter. He is not charismatic, but Obama doesn't need than. I've found him very impressive as a surrogate.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Lex

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jul-28-08 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #31

32. And by "you" you mean the owner of the site

to which I linked I'm guessing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

davidpdx

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jul-29-08 12:41 AM
Response to Original message

43. I agree with others, the way the chart was put out

it doesn't make any of them look too appealing. I still think Biden would be pretty good, though he would have to agree to stay on message and watch himself. If it were Biden, they would be better off waiting until right before the convention. By the time the convention is over that leaves about 10 weeks to keep him on a short leash. The guy is smart and savy, but just needs to watch what he says.

I think Schweitzer or Sebelius would great as well.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Tue May 07th 2024, 10:49 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.