Why do dems pick more electable veeps than candidates?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 02:56:07 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  Why do dems pick more electable veeps than candidates?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Why do dems pick more electable veeps than candidates?  (Read 1382 times)
Albus Dumbledore
Havelock Vetinari
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,917
Congo, The Democratic Republic of the


Political Matrix
E: -0.71, S: -2.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: July 08, 2008, 09:06:25 AM »

I really don't get it. The party has a long pattern of putting the more unelectable person on top of the ticket. Lieberman(like him or not(I personally despise him) the man was more electable), Edwards(a good old boy populist would have probably won in 2004) and many of the potential picks for Obama(Bayh, Sebelius, etc)
Logged
NDN
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,495
Uganda


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: July 08, 2008, 09:30:06 AM »
« Edited: July 08, 2008, 09:42:06 AM by Blue Dog »

You forgot Loyd Bentson.

I think it has to do our primary system. We tend to have a firebrand/maverick politician show up who shocks everyone by winning  (Hart, Dean, Bradley). This person normally fizzles out. Normally this has to do with them either alienating old party interests (like Labor Unions) and/or being perceived as too liberal. As a result the final candidate tends to be sort of generic and doesn't really please anyone (Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry). The only exception to this theory is really Obama, but he won mainly because we cast out a couple states plus Edwards split the vote.
Logged
Albus Dumbledore
Havelock Vetinari
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,917
Congo, The Democratic Republic of the


Political Matrix
E: -0.71, S: -2.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: July 08, 2008, 09:46:44 AM »

*facepalm*

Well I never said my list was exhaustive did I?

I have to say you're unfortunately about right. Short of reforming the primary system to make it be completely staggered with no opportunity for instant victory/defeat no chance of fixing that. -_- Sad
Logged
Bay Ridge, Bklyn! Born and Bred
MikeyCNY
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,181


Political Matrix
E: 1.94, S: -4.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: July 10, 2008, 08:34:28 AM »

LMAO

Bush would have beaten the Breck Girl in a landslide in 2004.  In fact, it is doubtful Edwards would have even carried his homestate.    John Kerry was by far the best candidate in 2004 from the choices we were presented with, but Bush was probably going to win that one anyway no matter who the Dem candidate was.
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: July 10, 2008, 08:43:22 AM »

Lieberman more electable than Gore?

What have you been smoking?
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.025 seconds with 12 queries.