Why wasn't Sam Nunn ever picked as a VP running mate?

[Suburbia]

Sam Nunn was a successful Southern moderate Democrat senator from Georgia. He had appeal to working class voters in the South and possibly the Midwest. He was considered a running mate for Democrats in 1984, 1988, 1992, 2000, 2004, and 2008. Why wasn't Nunn ever picked, and what political future does he have?

[Ebsy]

He has no political future beyond polite applause at Georgia State Democratic Party Jefferson-Jackson dinners until he dies.

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

He has no political future beyond polite applause at Georgia State Democratic Party Jefferson-Jackson dinners until he dies.

Yeah, he's 76. Though I think he would've been a great pick for Gore in 2000.

[Indy Texas]

He has no political future beyond polite applause at Georgia State Democratic Party Jefferson-Jackson dinners until he dies.

Yeah, he's 76. Though I think he would've been a great pick for Gore in 2000.

I never understood the rationale for Gore picking Lieberman. If he wanted a moderate Democratic running mate, why didn't he go with someone like Bob Graham or Jim Hunt? Lieberman had zero appeal to liberals and most moderate/independent voters likely assumed he was more liberal by virtue of being a Jewish Northeastern Democrat.

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

He has no political future beyond polite applause at Georgia State Democratic Party Jefferson-Jackson dinners until he dies.

Yeah, he's 76. Though I think he would've been a great pick for Gore in 2000.

I never understood the rationale for Gore picking Lieberman. If he wanted a moderate Democratic running mate, why didn't he go with someone like Bob Graham or Jim Hunt? Lieberman had zero appeal to liberals and most moderate/independent voters likely assumed he was more liberal by virtue of being a Jewish Northeastern Democrat.

There was a problem in Graham's vetting. Turns out he has a habit of writing down every little thing he does in a journal lol.

[Mister Mets]

Bad timing.

Carter was a Georgian, so that rules out 1976 and 1980.
Mondale wanted diversity on the ticket, so that rules out 1984.
Bill Clinton wanted someone younger, which rules out 1992 and 1996.
Edwards was popular with Democrats, which rules out 2004.

When Democrats decided to nominated an experienced hand, they picked other older long-serving Senators: Lloyd Bentsen in 1988, and Joe Biden in 2008.

He has no political future beyond polite applause at Georgia State Democratic Party Jefferson-Jackson dinners until he dies.

Yeah, he's 76. Though I think he would've been a great pick for Gore in 2000.

I never understood the rationale for Gore picking Lieberman. If he wanted a moderate Democratic running mate, why didn't he go with someone like Bob Graham or Jim Hunt? Lieberman had zero appeal to liberals and most moderate/independent voters likely assumed he was more liberal by virtue of being a Jewish Northeastern Democrat.

Gore wanted to distance himself from Clinton having an affair with a subordinate and lying about it.

Joe Lieberman had been one of the Democrats most critical of Bill Clinton for that.

[Indy Texas]

He has no political future beyond polite applause at Georgia State Democratic Party Jefferson-Jackson dinners until he dies.

Yeah, he's 76. Though I think he would've been a great pick for Gore in 2000.

I never understood the rationale for Gore picking Lieberman. If he wanted a moderate Democratic running mate, why didn't he go with someone like Bob Graham or Jim Hunt? Lieberman had zero appeal to liberals and most moderate/independent voters likely assumed he was more liberal by virtue of being a Jewish Northeastern Democrat.

There was a problem in Graham's vetting. Turns out he has a habit of writing down every little thing he does in a journal lol.

Yeah, I heard about that. So basically he was blogging/Tweeting/status-updating before it was a thing. No one would bat an eye at that today and even in 2000 it's not weird/salacious enough to have been a serious handicap.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

He has no political future beyond polite applause at Georgia State Democratic Party Jefferson-Jackson dinners until he dies.

Yeah, he's 76. Though I think he would've been a great pick for Gore in 2000.

I never understood the rationale for Gore picking Lieberman. If he wanted a moderate Democratic running mate, why didn't he go with someone like Bob Graham or Jim Hunt? Lieberman had zero appeal to liberals and most moderate/independent voters likely assumed he was more liberal by virtue of being a Jewish Northeastern Democrat.

Given that Graham was extremely popular in Florida, he would've easily swung the state for Gore, but, as already mentioned, his habit of noting everything in his diary was a problem.

[Mr. Smith]

1988 or 2000 would've been the best spots.

[Mister Mets]

He has no political future beyond polite applause at Georgia State Democratic Party Jefferson-Jackson dinners until he dies.

Yeah, he's 76. Though I think he would've been a great pick for Gore in 2000.

I never understood the rationale for Gore picking Lieberman. If he wanted a moderate Democratic running mate, why didn't he go with someone like Bob Graham or Jim Hunt? Lieberman had zero appeal to liberals and most moderate/independent voters likely assumed he was more liberal by virtue of being a Jewish Northeastern Democrat.

Given that Graham was extremely popular in Florida, he would've easily swung the state for Gore, but, as already mentioned, his habit of noting everything in his diary was a problem.

Yeah, Gore was afraid of having an open administration.

[DS0816]

The Democrats have done well getting away from including a southerner on their party tickets. The 2008 ticket of Illinois's Barack Obama/Delaware's Joe Biden should be the new standard. If the party is going to win the presidency…nominated a presidential/vice-presidential ticket in which the candidates' home states are a part of the Democratic Party's base.

[RINO Tom]

The Democrats have done well getting away from including a southerner on their party tickets. The 2008 ticket of Illinois's Barack Obama/Delaware's Joe Biden should be the new standard. If the party is going to win the presidency…nominated a presidential/vice-presidential ticket in which the candidates' home states are a part of the Democratic Party's base.

Democrats "doing well" had nothing to do with not having Southerners on the ticket.  Obama would have won by similar margins - maybe even a larger one - had he had a Southern Democrat as his VP.  I think it's just that you don't like the South (if I'm not mistaken, you are from Michigan ... and I'm not sure what's so great about that place to warrant geographical elitism).

Also, the political parties' "bases" aren't as simple as "South vs. North."  If anything, the GOP's "base" is - and has been for a while - the Plains and the Mountain West, and the Democrats "base" is - and has been for a while - lower New England and New York.  The rest of the country - including the Old Confederacy, the upper Midwest, etc. - has been a lot more diverse in its politics, even today.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

The Democrats have done well getting away from including a southerner on their party tickets. The 2008 ticket of Illinois's Barack Obama/Delaware's Joe Biden should be the new standard. If the party is going to win the presidency…nominated a presidential/vice-presidential ticket in which the candidates' home states are a part of the Democratic Party's base.

Democrats "doing well" had nothing to do with not having Southerners on the ticket.  Obama would have won by similar margins - maybe even a larger one - had he had a Southern Democrat as his VP.  I think it's just that you don't like the South (if I'm not mistaken, you are from Michigan ... and I'm not sure what's so great about that place to warrant geographical elitism).

Also, the political parties' "bases" aren't as simple as "South vs. North."  If anything, the GOP's "base" is - and has been for a while - the Plains and the Mountain West, and the Democrats "base" is - and has been for a while - lower New England and New York.  The rest of the country - including the Old Confederacy, the upper Midwest, etc. - has been a lot more diverse in its politics, even today.

I don't care about this thread, but that is a low blow against the state the built 20th Century America. I don't hate Illinois, but I'll go there if I need to, buddy.

[RINO Tom]

The Democrats have done well getting away from including a southerner on their party tickets. The 2008 ticket of Illinois's Barack Obama/Delaware's Joe Biden should be the new standard. If the party is going to win the presidency…nominated a presidential/vice-presidential ticket in which the candidates' home states are a part of the Democratic Party's base.

Democrats "doing well" had nothing to do with not having Southerners on the ticket.  Obama would have won by similar margins - maybe even a larger one - had he had a Southern Democrat as his VP.  I think it's just that you don't like the South (if I'm not mistaken, you are from Michigan ... and I'm not sure what's so great about that place to warrant geographical elitism).

Also, the political parties' "bases" aren't as simple as "South vs. North."  If anything, the GOP's "base" is - and has been for a while - the Plains and the Mountain West, and the Democrats "base" is - and has been for a while - lower New England and New York.  The rest of the country - including the Old Confederacy, the upper Midwest, etc. - has been a lot more diverse in its politics, even today.

I don't care about this thread, but that is a low blow against the state the built 20th Century America. I don't hate Illinois, but I'll go there if I need to, buddy.

From my point of view, the poster I quoted has already "gone there" with his past posts that seem to exhibit an insane amount of elitism toward certain parts of this country and the voters that fill those states.  I'm imagining I have a similar affection for IL that you do for MI, and at least for me that means accepting Illinois as home - the good, the bad and the ugly.  And because I'm aware of the bad and the ugly IL has to offer, I try (not always successfully) to not trash other states from my glass house, haha.

[DS0816]

The Democrats have done well getting away from including a southerner on their party tickets. The 2008 ticket of Illinois's Barack Obama/Delaware's Joe Biden should be the new standard. If the party is going to win the presidency…nominated a presidential/vice-presidential ticket in which the candidates' home states are a part of the Democratic Party's base.

Democrats "doing well" had nothing to do with not having Southerners on the ticket.  Obama would have won by similar margins - maybe even a larger one - had he had a Southern Democrat as his VP.  I think it's just that you don't like the South (if I'm not mistaken, you are from Michigan ... and I'm not sure what's so great about that place to warrant geographical elitism).

Also, the political parties' "bases" aren't as simple as "South vs. North."  If anything, the GOP's "base" is - and has been for a while - the Plains and the Mountain West, and the Democrats "base" is - and has been for a while - lower New England and New York.  The rest of the country - including the Old Confederacy, the upper Midwest, etc. - has been a lot more diverse in its politics, even today.

I don't care about this thread, but that is a low blow against the state the built 20th Century America. I don't hate Illinois, but I'll go there if I need to, buddy.

From my point of view, the poster I quoted has already "gone there" with his past posts that seem to exhibit an insane amount of elitism toward certain parts of this country and the voters that fill those states.  I'm imagining I have a similar affection for IL that you do for MI, and at least for me that means accepting Illinois as home - the good, the bad and the ugly.  And because I'm aware of the bad and the ugly IL has to offer, I try (not always successfully) to not trash other states from my glass house, haha.

I presented a post on February 1, 2015 about states' histories in carrying for presidential winners. One forum member responded to it even though it had 150 views. I figured, given that, I did enough work with gathering the info, presenting it, and then seeing people go to threads like, "Will Utah vote Democratic," that I was not going to let the thread drift or sink. So, I deleted it.

Anyway…here's some context:

Seven of the eleven states of the Old Confederacy rank among the ten worst in historically having backed presidential winners. They are: 41) Louisiana; 43) Arkansas; 44) Texas; 45) Georgia and South Carolina; 49) Mississippi; 50) Alabama.

The base of today's Republican Party are in those states, plus former bellwether Tennessee (which ranks No. 25). The bellwether state of Florida is historically the best-performing in this region (it ranks No. 18). North Carolina, no longer a Strong Republican state, now a competitive state, and the next to become a bellwether state, ranks No. 30. And Virginia, which did a better job than all other states with having reflected the national percentage margins with both the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections, is at No. 32. (North Carolina and Virginia are historically on par with the percentages of states which have carried for presidential winners, which is in between 69 and 70 percent which, of course, is carriage of 34/35 states.)


The best-performing states, historically, include what we now recognize as the "Blue Firewall" states (ones which haven't carried Republican once since after the 1980s), and they include: 2) Illinois; 3) California; 4) New York; 6) Pennsylvania; 8 ) Wisconsin; 12) Minnesota and Oregon; 17) Michigan; 20) New Jersey; 22) Washington; 23) Rhode Island.

So, the best Old Confederacy state that is now a part of the Republicans' base is actually Tennessee. Meanwhile, there are eleven states which are part of the "Blue Firewall"/Democratic base states that are historically ranked above Tennessee. And, aside from Tennessee, seven of the remaining ten Old Confederacy states are among the ten worst states in having carried for presidential winners.

I think this is very relevant.

[Thunderbird is the word]

His best chance IMO would have been if Kennedy had won the nomination in 80 to appease the Carter wing of the party.