The VP candidate will probably NOT be...

[Dookus]

one of the current candidates for President. It's very rare for a winner to choose one of his primary opponents as his running mate. Everybody here keeps proposing Dean/Clark, Clark/Dean, Clark/Kerry and the like. From what I remember, this almost never happens? let's look:

Gore/Lieberman vs. Bush/Cheney
Clinton/Gore vs. Dole/Kemp
Clinton/Gore vs. Bush/Quayle
Dukakis/Bensen vs. Bush/Quayle
Mondale/Ferraro vs. Reagan/Bush
Carter/Mondale vs. Reagan/Bush

and THAT was the last time a presidential nominee picked a primary challenger as his running mate. 1980.

I don't know when the last time before that was...

Carter/Mondale vs. Ford/Dole
McGovern/Shriver vs. Nixon/Agnew
Humphrey/Muskie vs. Nixon/Agnew
Johnson/Humphrey vs. Goldwater/Miller

I don't think any of these VP's ran for President in those years.

[wuushew]

1. Traditional rules of politics mean nothing post-coup

Its a whole new ballgame in the era of shrub.

[kiahzero]

3. I agree

Especially because the field is so strong... There's bound to be one or two candidates that come very close to one another as others start dropping out, and they're more likely to be consensus candidates.

[Zynx]

2. I would point out...

that there are many cases where the candidate does pick one of his opponents to unify the party. For instance, Kennedy picked Johnson and Roosevelt chose John Nance Garner.

[mlawson]

4. I think it will be different in 2004.

The DNC will insist on a VP candidate who has been vetted. No suprises, no skeletons. Those who have been in the promary process are vetted, expecially with the KKKRove machine busy looking up any dirt they can find.

Look for our VP to be either Edwards or Clark.

[Dookus]

9. That's quite possible...

I don't rule it out... I think it's unlikely that a current candidate will be the VP nominee.

The real possibilities are: Clark, Edwards, Graham

I really don't see Dean goin' for VP. I think Clark WOULD accept it, though, if offered. Lieberman, Gephardt, Sharpton, Braun and Kucinich would not add enough to the ticket to make it worthwhile.

Kerry would, I think, be unlikely to run for VP. But it's possible... I didn't think Gore would, either.

In the end, though, I think the Dem nominee will be Dean, Clark or Kerry, and his VP will be somebody who's not running. If I were psychic, I'd guess Cleland, Feinstein, Landrieu or Harkin. Graham has the best chance of the also-rans to be chosen.

[KC21304]

5. Probably Kennedy/Johnson 1960

[PAMod]

6. Historically speaking, the veep is not from the pool of candidates.

There are some natural pairings this year, however, that might make 2004 different.

Clark matches up well with everyone, as does Graham & Edwards.

I'll add to the historical discussion - the last three pairings from within the presidential field were Reagan/Bush in 1980, Kennedy/Johnson in 1960, and Roosevelt/Garner in 1932 - winners all (and no, Kefauver ran for pres in '52 and was Adlai's running mate in '56 - doesn't count in this instance.)

[DemPopulist]

8. Kefauver ran in '56 too

:dem:

[birdman]

18. Kefauver was the only VP candidate chosen by the convention

not the candidate. Stevenson threw the choice to the convention
and there was a multi-ballot battle between Kefauver,
Hubert Humphrey and young hot shot John F. Kennedy.

[caledesi]

7. Reagan chose Bush I even after Bush slammed him for his

voodoo economics.

[Dookus]

10. I agree with all the posts here...

it is possible that the vp candidate will be a current prez candidate.

I posted this because I'd like people to expand their horizons about which pool we choose our vp's from.

[Gore1FL]

11. Humphrey and Muske were

Muske was the front runner until he cried.

[Dookus]

12. still....

my point is that only a couple primary opponents have been selected for the VP candidate in the last 50 or so years.

[birdman]

13. Muskie was front-runner in 1972

He was nominated for VP in 1968 when he was not a candidate.

Reagan/Bush and Kennedy/Johnson are the only examples I can think
of in the post WWII era.

[AP]

14. LBJ and Bush were chosen for VERY similar reasons...

...because they were the real power in the party, and they couldn't get elected on their own merits. They needed to attach themselves to more appealing candidates and then win as VP/Incumb/by succession.

[newyawker99]

15. kick

[maha]

16. Poppy Bush was a primary opponent of Reagan in 1980. n/t

[Dookus]

17. yes...

I thought I made that clear in my original post.

[MGKrebs]

19. I agree, Dookus.

It's possible, but it is especially unlikely that a front-running candidate would choose a VP more thatn a couple of weeks before the convention. I mean, if they are the front runner, why would they? There must be hundreds of potential names they can sift through; mayors, governors, guys like Erskine Bowles who aren't currently in government, even pundits like Begala maybe.

Of course, if we were repubs, we would be selecting Torricelli for VP.

:evilgrin: