What ticket can beat Warner/Richardson?

[MAS117]

What GOP ticket can beat Warner/Richardson? I think this map is good:

[TheresNoMoney]

That ticket could probably beat quite a few GOP tickets.

I think Warner could beat Frist, Brownback, Gingrich, Romney, Huckabee etc. Warner would lose to McCain. I am undecided on Allen and Guiliani.

[Moooooo]

Realistic tickets only.

Allen/Romney or Pawlenty.

Focus the campaign primarily around security and defense issues.  When Warner tries to push Richardson into the spotlight as his defense/foreign policy czar, point out that Richardson cannot be trusted due to his treasonous past.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Realistic tickets only.

Allen/Romney or Pawlenty.

Focus the campaign primarily around security and defense issues.  When Warner tries to push Richardson into the spotlight as his defense/foreign policy czar, point out that Richardson cannot be trusted due to his treasonous past.

Well, obviously Kerry or Clark would be better VP picks for Warner.

[AuH2O]

Warner lacks personality and will be compromised by the primaries-- though I doubt he will allow himself to be made a total fool, as has Evan Bayh. Richardson has some baggage but is smart, personable, and somewhat moderate.

Most likely only a good GOP ticket would defeat them, either in the case of a terrific conservative (Pawlenty, Sanford, perhaps Allen) or one of the two maverick elephants, Guiliani and McCain.

It's too bad for Richardson that he has some scandal-issues dating to his service under Clinton, also that he is not a striking physical specimen. Most unfortunately, it's too bad Hillary wants to be President... by logical extension, it's too bad Bill won in 1992. All those things aside, he would be a tremendous force.

[Jake]

Richardson has so much baggage that he would be easily the worst VP pick since Ferraro. A ticket with him on it would lose, how badly depends on the top of the ticket.

[MAS117]

Richardson has so much baggage that he would be easily the worst VP pick since Ferraro. A ticket with him on it would lose, how badly depends on the top of the ticket.

I don't think Richardson is anywhere worse then John Edwards. He brings EV's into the mix at least.

[MAS117]

Realistic tickets only.

Allen/Romney or Pawlenty.

Focus the campaign primarily around security and defense issues.  When Warner tries to push Richardson into the spotlight as his defense/foreign policy czar, point out that Richardson cannot be trusted due to his treasonous past.

Well, obviously Kerry or Clark would be better VP picks for Warner.

Kerry would be a terrible choice for VP, Clark might be ok, but he doesn't really do anything behind AR in the Electoral College.

[AuH2O]

They both would be horrible but I figured few people here or anywhere are crazy enough to actually buy ferny on that one.

[The Duke]

Richardson gains 5 EVs in NM but loses many more elsewhere.  Would you trust Richardson with national security given his management of the Energy Department under Clinton?  I wouldn't.

Even so, I think Democrats would have a hard time getting high turnout with those two, just as they would if the GOP nominated Giuliani or McCain.  Only way Giuliani or McCain can count on GOP turnout is by demonizing their opponent (read: Stop Hillary).

[Jake]

Richardson has so much baggage that he would be easily the worst VP pick since Ferraro. A ticket with him on it would lose, how badly depends on the top of the ticket.

I don't think Richardson is anywhere worse then John Edwards. He brings EV's into the mix at least.

Read Ford's post. He brings some Hispanic voters, but loses those voters who would rather we keep nuclear secrets out of China's hands.

[© tweed]

Many could.  Warner really isn't a very good 2008 candidate; at this stage, he's a little known one-term governor of a state that generates little media attention.  He'd be attacked for his inexperience and he's a good, not great, speaker.

Richardson likely is finished by now.  He's scandal-scarred, he would drag the ticket down before he helped it.

[nini2287]

Many could.  Warner really isn't a very good 2008 candidate; at this stage, he's a little known one-term governor of a state that generates little media attention.  He'd be attacked for his inexperience and he's a good, not great, speaker.

Richardson likely is finished by now.  He's scandal-scarred, he would drag the ticket down before he helped it.

I agree that Warner may not be the best candidate but he's definitely one of the top three or four.  Warner is one of the best known governors in the Union and is well-known and respected throughout Virginia.  He's the head of the National Governors Association and Virginia is in the news a lot more than other states, say Indiana or New Mexico (even though Bayh and Richardson might be better candidates).

[© tweed]

Virtually nobody knows who Mark Warner is at this point, but that really isn't the issue.  The issue is, he has ONE TERM of experience, outside of the federal government.  The GOP attacked Edwards, the VICE PRESIDENTIAL candidate, for his one term as senator, inside of the federal government.  If you though the treatment Edwards got was rough, watch what they'd do to Warner.  He'd be shredded by election day.

[nini2287]

Virtually nobody knows who Mark Warner is at this point, but that really isn't the issue.  The issue is, he has ONE TERM of experience, outside of the federal government.  The GOP attacked Edwards, the VICE PRESIDENTIAL candidate, for his one term as senator, inside of the federal government.  If you though the treatment Edwards got was rough, watch what they'd do to Warner.  He'd be shredded by election day.

I see and agree with your point, I misunderstood what you were getting at before.  I still think it's hypocritical of the GOP to criticize Edwards for having 6 years of federal government experience, while Bush had just 6 years of state government experience.

[© tweed]

Virtually nobody knows who Mark Warner is at this point, but that really isn't the issue.  The issue is, he has ONE TERM of experience, outside of the federal government.  The GOP attacked Edwards, the VICE PRESIDENTIAL candidate, for his one term as senator, inside of the federal government.  If you though the treatment Edwards got was rough, watch what they'd do to Warner.  He'd be shredded by election day.

I see and agree with your point, I misunderstood what you were getting at before.  I still think it's hypocritical of the GOP to criticize Edwards for having 6 years of federal government experience, while Bush had just 6 years of state government experience.

Of course it's hypocritical -- they came up with a lame excuse that this is 'post 9-11' and Bush was elected 'pre 9-11'.  But that's not the issue; the issue is, it matters to the American public.  It would matter to the voting public that Warner was inexperienced, and it would probably kill him in an election.

[nini2287]

Virtually nobody knows who Mark Warner is at this point, but that really isn't the issue.  The issue is, he has ONE TERM of experience, outside of the federal government.  The GOP attacked Edwards, the VICE PRESIDENTIAL candidate, for his one term as senator, inside of the federal government.  If you though the treatment Edwards got was rough, watch what they'd do to Warner.  He'd be shredded by election day.

I see and agree with your point, I misunderstood what you were getting at before.  I still think it's hypocritical of the GOP to criticize Edwards for having 6 years of federal government experience, while Bush had just 6 years of state government experience.

Of course it's hypocritical -- they came up with a lame excuse that this is 'post 9-11' and Bush was elected 'pre 9-11'.  But that's not the issue; the issue is, it matters to the American public.  It would matter to the voting public that Warner was inexperienced, and it would probably kill him in an election.

Warner's inexperience will undoubtly hurt him if he chooses to run in 2008, but if wins the nomination, he can choose a running mate who has lots of foreign policy experience like Bush did in 2000 (maybe Biden or even Gore).