Who of these would be the best VP pick for Mark Warner and why?

[TheresNoMoney]

I feel that Mark Warner is probably our best candidate to beat Hillary Clinton in the primary.

My question is, who of these six would be his best VP candidate and why? I tried to pick six candidates who would bring something new/balance out the ticket.

I left off Evan Bayh, Russ Feingold, John Edwards, and Hillary Clinton on purpose. I feel like Evan Bayh and John Edwards don't have any strengths that Warner doesn't already have. Russ Feingold is best suited to the Senate, where he could accomplish more than he could as VP. Hillary would be a huge distraction to the ticket.

I feel that each of the six listed above would strengthen the ticket and help bring out more voters for Warner. Which one do you think would make the ticket the strongest?

[Moooooo]

Part of me wants to say Vilsack.  I think they could do a lot of damage.  However, the whole foreign policy thing may crash their campaign.  Thats where Biden or Clark comes in.  Eh, Ill vote Vilsack because I really dont see how they lose any Kerry states plus Iowa.  After that its mostly speculation.

[TheresNoMoney]

I voted for Clark based on military credentials and progressive following, although I think Barack Obama (charisma, strong progressive following, outstanding public speaker) or Bill Richardson (energy cred, Hispanic following) could also be strong VP picks.

[The Dowager Mod]

Richardson for the southwest and hispanic connection.

[Moooooo]

I voted for Clark based on military credentials and progressive following, although I think Barack Obama (charisma, strong progressive following, outstanding public speaker) or Bill Richardson (energy cred, Hispanic following) could also be strong VP picks.

Clark - I like Clark, but someone about him bugs the hell out of me.  Maybe its his rabid supporters I have to fight with day in and day out.

Obama - He'll have only served 4 years in the senate by 2008.  Picking Obama would result in more negatives than positives.

Richardson - I like Richardson too, but the whole Los Alamos thing scares me.  This pick could really backfire.

[TheresNoMoney]

Clark - I like Clark, but someone about him bugs the hell out of me.  Maybe its his rabid supporters I have to fight with day in and day out.

Where do you fight with Clark supporters? I know he has a very loyal following, but I've never had any problems (although I am a Clark fan myself).

Obama - He'll have only served 4 years in the senate by 2008.  Picking Obama would result in more negatives than positives.

I disagree. Him being in the Senate for only 4 years means less votes to pick apart and attack. Plus he is the best public speaker in the Democratic party hands down. He would do wonders in turning out the more progressive Democrts, the black vote and quite possibly the Latino vote as well. Another great thing is, as VP, we would be grooming him to run for president when Warner is done. He is the closest thing the Democrats have to a "rock star" currently in the party.

Richardson - I like Richardson too, but the whole Los Alamos thing scares me.  This pick could really backfire.

I agree. I'm not quite sure how much Richardson would really help the ticket. I think Warner could win New Mexico without him. However, Richardson could also really help turn out the Latino vote.

[Moooooo]

Where do you fight with Clark supporters?

DU.

I have a nice little Warner movement now, but we're still not nearly as large as Clarks following.

Clarks supporters praise him as the only Democrat w/ balls.  But in my opinion, the only reason he comes off like that is he doesnt have to tip toe around issues since there will be no political ramifications regardless of what he says or does.  Its a whole different ballgame when you actually hold elective office.  In a sense he's a monday morning quarterback.

[© tweed]

Biden, he brings much needed experience to the ticket.  But I voted for Napolitano by accident.

[Erc]

Biden.

Biden.

Biden.


No matter who gets the nomination, Biden should be the VP choice.

[Ben.]

I feel that Mark Warner is probably our best candidate to beat Hillary Clinton in the primary.

My question is, who of these six would be his best VP candidate and why? I tried to pick six candidates who would bring something new/balance out the ticket.

I left off Evan Bayh, Russ Feingold, John Edwards, and Hillary Clinton on purpose. I feel like Evan Bayh and John Edwards don't have any strengths that Warner doesn't already have. Russ Feingold is best suited to the Senate, where he could accomplish more than he could as VP. Hillary would be a huge distraction to the ticket.

I feel that each of the six listed above would strengthen the ticket and help bring out more voters for Warner. Which one do you think would make the ticket the strongest?

None, but one, of those you mention…!!

The candidates you mention are a bizarre collection only Biden would do anything for a Warner lead ticket, the inclusion of Clark is also pretty odd!   

Tom Vilsack, Bill Richardson and Janet Napolitano – All popular and successful governors of swing states, but Warner is also a popular and accomplished governor he doesn’t need someone with purely executive experience on the ticket. Consequently only Richardson would be a possibility but where he to be picked he’d be crucified on the issue of Los-Alamos which would rule him out as a national candidate period IMO. 

Barack Obama and Wesley Clark, both way, way too inexperienced, Clark laughable so. Warner needs some with foreign policy experience and a decent understand of how things work on the Hill, in ten years maybe Obama, but neither gives Warner the elgisaltive experience a ticket lead by him would need.

Joe Biden, a credible choice, plenty of understanding on foreign policy and plenty of experience as US Senator who would ably fill the gaps in Warner’s experience and produce a very strong ticket.   


Those you don’t mention…

Warner would be well advised to do what Clinton (a far more experienced southern governor did) and select a candidate who both addresses his own lack of national political experience and reinforces his own moderate and/or southern appeal. There are a number of likely choice who could be the ‘Gore’ to Warner’s ‘Clinton’.

Evan Bayh, brings a record of consistent popularity in a red state, sizable executive and legislative experience and reinforces Warner’s appeal as a moderate, centrist Dem.

Blanche Lincoln, like Bayh brings a consistent record of popularity in a moderate to conservative state, this time in the south and so reinforces Warner’s own Southern appeal. And again like Bayh brings a second moderate, centrist voice to the ticket.

Then you have a number of other Senator who bring the same sort of strengths to the ticket as Lincoln or Bayh, Nelson (FL) and Landrieu (LA). And finally retire, elder statesmen such as John Breaux and Dick Gephardt would be good potential outsider bets, both bringing vast experience, credibility and moderate appeal to strengthen a Warner lead ticket.           

[Wiz in Wis]

Richardson for the southwest and hispanic connection.

Darn tootin...

[Speed of Sound]

Warner/Obama would be great!

[MODU]

Of those listed, Richardson would be the best pick since he's closer to Warner's political slant than anyone else as well as brings some political pull in the mid-West.

[TheresNoMoney]

Of those listed, Richardson would be the best pick since he's closer to Warner's political slant than anyone else as well as brings some political pull in the mid-West.

Why would you want two centrists on the ticket? Do you want 2000 to happen all over again and a Nader-like candidate to get 4% or 5% nationally?

Warner's VP pick needs to be more progressive than him and help him with the base.

[TheresNoMoney]

The candidates you mention are a bizarre collection only Biden would do anything for a Warner lead ticket, the inclusion of Clark is also pretty odd!

Thanks, man. Because you don't think they'd fit makes them "bizarre" and "odd".   

Evan Bayh, brings a record of consistent popularity in a red state, sizable executive and legislative experience and reinforces Warner’s appeal as a moderate, centrist Dem.

Evan Bayh brings absolutely nothing to the ticket that Warner doesn't already bring.  I still don't get the call for two centrist candidates. It will only hurt the ticket by leading to a third-party challenge from the left. The last thing we want is a 2000 repeat. You need to learn from your mistakes and not repeat them.

Blanche Lincoln, like Bayh brings a consistent record of popularity in a moderate to conservative state, this time in the south and so reinforces Warner’s own Southern appeal. And again like Bayh brings a second moderate, centrist voice to the ticket.

I don't get the fascination with Blanche Lincoln. She has been very  bad on economic issues.

Then you have a number of other Senator who bring the same sort of strengths to the ticket as Lincoln or Bayh, Nelson (FL) and Landrieu (LA). And finally retire, elder statesmen such as John Breaux and Dick Gephardt would be good potential outsider bets, both bringing vast experience, credibility and moderate appeal to strengthen a Warner lead ticket.      

Nelson, Landrieu, Breaux? Ugh. Do you really think we win in Louisiana or Nebraska? These nominees bring nothing to the ticket.

[MODU]

Of those listed, Richardson would be the best pick since he's closer to Warner's political slant than anyone else as well as brings some political pull in the mid-West.

Why would you want two centrists on the ticket? Do you want 2000 to happen all over again and a Nader-like candidate to get 4% or 5% nationally?

Warner's VP pick needs to be more progressive than him and help him with the base.

For the same reason you wouldn't vote for Brownback or Santorum.  I don't want a "progressive" (read as liberal).  I want a moderate/centrist . . . someone who doesn't care about his core-party ideology but more about what the people as a whole thinks.  The base will vote for the party, no matter how soft on the core Warner and his VP pick is, just so they can win the WH back.  So why shoot your foot before the race by picking someone that will push moderates and independents like myself away from your candidate?  It makes no sense (which is probably why the democrats have been losing seats over the past decade).

[TheresNoMoney]

For the same reason you wouldn't vote for Brownback or Santorum.  I don't want a "progressive" (read as liberal).  I want a moderate/centrist . . . someone who doesn't care about his core-party ideology but more about what the people as a whole thinks.

Democrats are not the ideologues that Republicans are. Obama/Clark are nowhere near as extreme as Brownback/Santorum. And let's face it MODU, you're not going to vote for a Democrat anyway (unless it's Zell Miller).  

The base will vote for the party, no matter how soft on the core Warner and his VP pick is, just so they can win the WH back.

Yea, that theory held true in 2000. Not. Nader stole the presidency from Gore/Lieberman, who both ran as boring centrists. I don't want it to happen again.

So why shoot your foot before the race by picking someone that will push moderates and independents like myself away from your candidate?

My theory is that nominating another centrist VP will only hurt the ticket by driving voters to a third-party candidate. Anyone who won't vote for Warner based on picking a Clark/Obama for VP isn't going to vote Democrat anyway. VP's rarely hurt the ticket, and usually can only help. We need to nominate a VP who has appeal that Warner doesn't already possess. To me, that's just common sense.

[MODU]

For the same reason you wouldn't vote for Brownback or Santorum.  I don't want a "progressive" (read as liberal).  I want a moderate/centrist . . . someone who doesn't care about his core-party ideology but more about what the people as a whole thinks.

Democrats are not the ideologues that Republicans are. Obama/Clark are nowhere near as extreme as Brownback/Santorum. And let's face it MODU, you're not going to vote for a Democrat anyway (unless it's Zell Miller).  

Uh, no, and you will have seen over the past year that I have said Warner would be appealing, especially against far-right Republicans.  Obama is too young/inexperienced, and only bring charisma to the table, much like Edwards.  He won't add anything to the ticket.  Clark is a Dino, and has too much international baggage to benefit Warner.  Note my prior recommendations on Warner VP's in the other thread for options.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yea, that theory held true in 2000. Not. Nader stole the presidency from Gore/Lieberman, who both ran as boring centrists. I don't want it to happen again.[/quote]

No, that is not the case at all.  Gore was a poor candidate that could not connect with the majority of the voters.  And while Clinton probably cost him a few thousand votes, he made up those votes by being the incumbant. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My theory is that nominating another centrist VP will only hurt the ticket by driving voters to a third-party candidate. Anyone who won't vote for Warner based on picking a Clark/Obama for VP isn't going to vote Democrat anyway. VP's rarely hurt the ticket, and usually can only help. We need to nominate a VP who has appeal that Warner doesn't already possess. To me, that's just common sense.
[/quote]

That is partly true, but people are growing more aware of who the VP is and what they stand for.  I can handle a Warner/Ford presidency more than I can handle a Warner/Kennedy presidency, and, if the GOP choice is too extreme, I would have no problems voting for a third-party candidate and letting Warner win.  On the flip side, a far-left Democrat is not going to vote for a third-party candidate just because Warner and his VP are moderates, nor will they not vote at all, since they really want to get back into the WH.  So, by pitching a solid moderate democrat ticket can only help them, not hurt them, in the 2008 election.  (The same goes for the Republicans too.)

[Defarge]

Richardson.  He brings experience and the hispanic vote.  He's like Dick Cheney, except not evil, and hispanic.

[tarheel-leftist85]

Out of the one's mentioned above, I'd say Vilsack.  But here is my list:
(1)  Blanche Lincoln--merges domestic/economic issues with military (Soldiers' Bill of Rights)...the Reps. would have a heck of a time trying to put her in a box.  I also think she'd keep some liberals from voting third party.  With Warner and Lincoln, we would probably win white women (which I don't believe even Clinton did).  After all, Lincoln won a majority of white women; and with a 70% JA rating, Warner would've easily won white women if he would've been able to run for re-election.  I'd also expect African-Americans to vote over 90% for this ticket (Lincoln won 96% of African-American Arkansans).  She would also be able to cast tie-breaking votes as President of the Senate, while gaining executive experience (for a *successful* run in 2016).
(2)  Russ Feingold--seems to be a candid, trustworthy guy (and would probably prevent most of the liberal portion of the party from defecting).

Others...not on the short list
(3)  Bill Nelson
(4)  Kathleen Sebelius
(5)  Barack Obama

I know I'll catch a lot of heat by saying this, but if Warner were to choose Clark, his prospects would diminish.  Sorry!  I actually supported Clark initially during the last primary season (before I thought Edwards had a chance), but then he started to scare me for some reason.  In a VP debate, I think he would be hung out to dry.  I really think Blanche would stand her ground with someone like Sanford or Romney.

[RJ]

Call me crazy, but I bet if Warner were at the top of the ticket and the VP slot was filled by a competent southerner, I bet the Democrats could win >%75 of the electoral votes in the south IF the GOP nominee is NOT a southerner. They could even sweep down there the way Carter did in 76'. Think about it: Could you really see NC, LA, GA, or even TN going to a party with Guliani, McCain, Romney, or Hagel at the top instead of Warner/Edwards, Warner/Easley or even Warner/Landrieu?

With this in mind, I wouldn't mind at all a Warner/Clinton ticket.

[skybridge]

They can't just choose anyone they like, it depends on the delegates.

[TheresNoMoney]

They can't just choose anyone they like, it depends on the delegates.

Excuse my ignorance, but how does that process work?

[Wiz in Wis]

They can't just choose anyone they like, it depends on the delegates.

Delegates to What? How Many Delegates Did Dick Cheney or Joe Liberman get when they ran in 2000 again?

[GOP = Terrorists]

Obama is too young/inexperienced, and only bring charisma to the table, much like Edwards.  He won't add anything to the ticket.  Clark is a Dino, and has too much international baggage to benefit Warner.  Note my prior recommendations on Warner VP's in the other thread for options.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It isn't so much the party base that they need to worry about not turning out.  It is the activist base who would be doing the grassroots grunt work.  They will work hard for a moderate but without a progressive on the ticket you greatly reduce the zeal of the activist base.