Who do we draft?

Okay. So I'm helplessly obsessed with this election season. I thought I'd share my comments about the upcoming selection. I have a pretty good feel for the Democratic field, and will attempt to make some stabs at the Republican ranks, but if their is a red elephant amongst the S2 crowd, I'd love to hear your perspective.

The big two:

1) Al Gore: This is a no-brainer. Al Gore is by far the best candidate and most likely to be selected. I like Big Al most for the states he puts out of play: Iowa (which he won in 2000 and where Obama is heavily favored), PA (which has an electorate that loves familiar names), the eco-leaning NM and CO, and he sure as hell wouldn't hurt in NV, OH, and FL. If Obama were to win one of those states, NV being the most likely, he wins the nomination. Bottom line, Obama picks Gore, the election is over.

Gore is also a good pairing for Obama for any number of reasons. He is a very familiar name, but with his laid back manner, and Obama's star persona there isn't a risk of him overshadowing his running mate. Gore's campaign for climate change, a component of which is new energy solutions, is very attractive this election season with the sky-high oil prices. Furthermore, and I hate talking about this, but there have been signs -- especially in TX -- that some voters are reticent to vote for Obama because of a fear for his safety. Al Gore, of any candidate in either party, is probably best prepared to step up in such a situation. He's not a great campaigner, has fared poorly in past debates, but I think he would do much better a second time around. He appears to have grown in to his elder-statesman role well.

So it just becomes a question of whether Gore would accept: I would wager yes. Clinton-Gore started a trend, that Bush-Chaney has further strengthened, of powerful VPs working alongside a President. Gore could do a lot for his constituency from a post as VP. Furthermore, I don't think we should underestimate the pull of being in a role where you may be called upon to be the most powerful person on this earth. Finally, I think to some extent, we underestimate the role "duty" plays in the choices made by politicians -- it's all too easy to find hidden agendas.

2) Sharrod Brown (Senator Ohio): Sharrod Brown is a highly charismatic Senator from a swing state who compliments Obama well. He voted against the war. He's pro-choice. He voted against NAFTA because he felt it was not consistent with the best interests of Ohio, breaking with the Clinton administration. He's on the younger side, and he's been an assassin every time I've seen him on TV in a cross-fire setting. More than that -- he has a average guy -- I'm comfortable holding a firearm -- vibe, the type of thing that will play very well in the rust belt. Brown has said that he's not interested in the position, but of course, you take that with a grain of salt.

The following four candidates are more contingency possibilities if the above two don't accept, or if Hillary is more successful at sinking Obama amongst women voters:

1) Bill Richardson: Highly qualified, strong governor of a swing state. Would help lock down NM, CO and NV. Would put Texas into play -- it still wouldn't be winnable but McCain would have to put money into the seven media markets there. I just worry that a Hispanic-Black ticket would make it too difficult to pull of PA, MI and Iowa.

2) Jim Webb (Senator VA): Carries regional pull, but Obama would still struggle to carry VA, even with his help. Underscores some of Obama's strengths, including an emphasis on bipartisanship, and is against the war (and he's a war hero.) Mediocre campaigner.

3) Claire McCaskil (Governor Missouri), and Kathleen Sebelius (Governor Kansas): Both are highly popular effective Governors of their respective states. Sebelius may be a slightly better campaigner, but McCaskil would probably get the nod because she could put Missouri out of reach. Again, much like Richardson, the only question would be, how well would a woman candidate play in the rust belt.

Why the rest of the field isn't likely:
Tim Kaine (Governor VA): Unlike Jim Webb, may be singularly popular enough to put VA in play. Good campaigner with a moderate record. Only problem is he is pro-life.
Clinton (Senator NY): Used McCain's record to attack Obama in the primary. Underscores Obama's weaknesses and none of his strengths. Would mobilize the Republican base.
Ted Strickland (Governor OH): Has a horrible record of race baiting in his state elections. Not a very good candidate in debates. Does not underscore any of Obama's strengths.
John Edwards: Too liberal a running mate. Won't have a regional effect. Mediocre candidate.
Wesley Clark: Bad at campaigning. Will underscore Obama's weaknesses. No regional pull.
Bob Casey: Pro-Life.
Chuck Hagel: Pro-Life.
Joe Biden: No regional help. Voted to support war, not underscoring Obama's strenths.
Sam Nunn: Pro-Life

For the Republicans, actually I have no idea. And I'm done writing now. I'd love to hear some perspectives. All that I know is that it's not going to be one of the rumored suspects: Huckabee (whack job), Romney (whack job), Lieberman (underscores McCain weakness), or Jindal (no regional help).

 

Richardson.

I won't be voting for McCain or Obama (or Clinton).

I'm quite scared that Bob Barr will be the Libertarian candidate, making me want to stay home and not vote for the first time since 1976.

 

He's not a Libertarian, he's a neo-conservative.

He was republican congressman from Georgia until 2004. Prominent figure in the Clinton impeachment. Anti-Gay, proponent of the War on Drugs, anti-abortion, etc.

Just because he's claiming to be something else these days doesn't make me feel good about his established positions on these issues - positions I fully and wholeheartedly disagree with.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 21 2008, 10:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>He's not a Libertarian, he's a neo-conservative.

He was republican congressman from Georgia until 2004. Prominent figure in the Clinton impeachment. Anti-Gay, proponent of the War on Drugs, anti-abortion, etc.

Just because he's claiming to be something else these days doesn't make me feel good about his established positions on these issues - positions I fully and wholeheartedly disagree with.</div>

Bob Barr's talking the talk now. I gave $10 to his campaign a couple of weeks ago. . . my little contribution to project chaos Dem style. But the thing that surprised me is, at least from looking at his issue site, there is a lot that is attractive to me: anti-torture and suspension of habeas corpus, thought gay-marriage was a state issue in CA, favors withdrawal from Iraq, etc. Is that the real Bob Barr? Probably not, I guess.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 21 2008, 10:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>He's not a Libertarian, he's a neo-conservative.

He was republican congressman from Georgia until 2004. Prominent figure in the Clinton impeachment. Anti-Gay, proponent of the War on Drugs, anti-abortion, etc.

Just because he's claiming to be something else these days doesn't make me feel good about his established positions on these issues - positions I fully and wholeheartedly disagree with.</div>

Bob Barr's talking the talk now. I gave $10 to his campaign a couple of weeks ago. . . my little contribution to project chaos Dem style. But the thing that surprised me is, at least from looking at his issue site, there is a lot that is attractive to me: anti-torture and suspension of habeas corpus, thought gay-marriage was a state issue in CA, favors withdrawal from Iraq, etc. Is that the real Bob Barr? Probably not, I guess.

 

Pat Buchanan was against the war from the outset. Doesn't make me think any anti-war person would want to vote for him

 

Oh yeah, I can't imagine Gore taking the VP spot even if offered. He's making $millions as a vulture capitalist these days. And hyping up the sky is falling global warming scare - for profit.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 21 2008, 08:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Richardson.

I won't be voting for McCain or Obama (or Clinton).

I'm quite scared that Bob Barr will be the Libertarian candidate, making me want to stay home and not vote for the first time since 1976.</div>

I think I've settled on my choice for president.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Walsh

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Walsh ran a mock campaign for President in 1980, promising to make "Life's Been Good" the new national anthem if he won, and running on a platform of "Free Gas For Everyone." Though Walsh was not old enough to actually assume the office, he wanted to raise public awareness of the election. He then ran again for vice president in 1992 and was unsuccessful.</div>

Gotta love the "Free Gas For Everyone" pledge.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BG7 Lavigne @ May 22 2008, 08:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You left out my personal favorite for Obama's VP, Chris Dodd.

I think Edwards makes a lot of sense. He is popular, and will go with the message of change of the Obama campaign. Pennsylvania seems to be a lock for Obama now. Florida and Ohio are close now, he is still trailing though.

There was an interesting poll from Survey USA. Obama is now up big in Virginia. They did VP polling as well. Edwards clearly helps Obama the most among whites (I'm assuming working class).

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport...36-f6e5c918614e</div>

I don't trust the poll -- too much of an outlier. And this election has taught me to not trust polls in general. I'm convinced that often times, people say one thing and vote another -- we saw this in IN, CA, NC, Miss, etc. Polling of McCain's contingency from four years ago showed that, as recent as one month before the election, 32% said they weren't going to vote for bush. On election day, all but 1% voted for Bush. Overall, I think we should take what we've learned this election season and build off that: Obama has an Appalachia problem (or Appalachia has an Obama problem). It's going to be hard to win VA, especially since Kerry was -10 there. The demos haven't changed that much. This election season is about the West, and especially Nevada. We should have CO and NM locked up, with Democratic machines and governors. Nevada has a Republican governor, and will be the battle ground that probably decides the election.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ May 22 2008, 08:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It's a shame for the Dems that Obama and Clinton have beat up on eachother so bad that the best possible combination for the Democrats this fall can't happen.

If I'm a Democrat (and I'm not FTR), I'd seriously consider choosing Sherrod Brown. You're right in he is a bulldog, he's charismatic. More importantly, he carries significant credibility with the middle-class white voters like John Edwards does, but unlike Edwards, he's not as big of a target for Republicans.

Not to mention that he's from Ohio, which needless to say is an essential state to have to win a national election.</div>

I remember the first time I saw a clip of him. He's the real deal. I just hope he wants the spot. He hasn't endorsed yet and has said he isn't interested in the spot. But that's what all of the real candidates always say. The ones who have no chance of being VP always claim their interested -- helping to build cred for the eventual selection. With the exception of Clinton, of course, who is just bat-shit crazy. Though, the worry is that Brown could have skeletons in his closet and he's serious about not wanting the nod.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BG7 Lavigne @ May 22 2008, 10:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Virginia seems like fertile ground for Obama. Since Super Tuesday, in Virginia, Obama has led in 4 of the 9 Virginia polls. However, all of them have been from Survey USA. The latest Rasmussen poll shows Obama down 3 in Virginia, so it looks like it will be close. They did a pretty good job polling the primary [Survey USA]...they actually underestimated Obama a bit.

Virginia, right now, seems more likely than Nevada for Obama.</div>

Interesting. I checked and you're right, but theres all kinds of static in the numbers. They're all over the place. . . makes Tim Kaine more attractive. I double checked his stance on abortion and he is only "personally" pro-life, whatever that means. If the numbers are real, and I still retain major doubts, than either Kaine or Webb look like strong candidates.