While we're waiting on Tuesday's primary results...

[saltpoint]

Many states' primaries are this Tuesday the 12th, and we won't know their outcome until late Tuesday evening, more than likely.

There are some great races and we're going to be paying close attention Tuesday night.

Meanwhile, here's a thoughtful diversion before those first returns come in on Tuesday about our 2008 ticket.

If _________ is our presidential nominee, then _________should be the vice-presidential nominee.

If _________ is our presidential nominee, then _________ should be the vice-presidential nominee.

And so forth.

Below are a dozen talked-about and speculated-over potential Democratic candidates for president. As you go down the list of presidential nominees, you can choose anyone to be on the ticket as vice presidential nominee, and for whichever reason you feel is most persuasive: geographic balance, a given state's electoral votes, particular rank of Democrat, appeal to voters, demographic strategy, and so forth.

The 12:

1. Sen. Evan Bayh
2. Sen. Joe Biden
3. General Wesley Clark
4. Sen. Hillary Clinton
5. Sen. Christopher Dodd
6. Sen. John Edwards
7. Sen. Russ Feingold
8. Vice President Al Gore
9. Sen. John Kerry
10. Congressman Dennis Kucinich
11. Gov. Bill Richardson
12. Gov. Mark Warner

If you feel someone has been left out, add him or her and create a ticket.

Your finished dozen should look like this:

If Bayh, then __________________
If Biden, then _________________
If Clark, then _________________
If HClinton, then ________________
If Dodd, then ________________
If Edwards, then _____________
If Feingold, then ______________
If Gore, then _________________
If Kerry, then _______________
If Kucinich, then ______________
If Richardson, then ______________
If Warner, then _______________

One of these people, IMO, is likely to be our nominee, unless a dark horse emerges and surprises me.

My choices, subject to change at any time:

If Bayh, then Dodd.
If Biden, then Sebelius.
If Clark, then Alexis Herman.
If HClinton, then Richardson.
If Dodd, then Schweitzer.
If Edwards, then Harkin.
If Feingold, then Bumpers.
If Gore, then Obama.
If Kerry, then Durbin.
If Kucinich, then Richard Clarke.
If Richardson, then Bayh.
If Warner, then Lee Hamilton.
_____________________________

Pick us some winning tickets.

[rosesaylavee]

1. Interesting.

I hadn't considered Durbin a possible candidate before now. He is the quiet but steady senior senator from my state - just hadn't thought of him in that role before. Here is my list:

If Bayh, then Clark
If Biden, then Kerry
If Clark, then Edwards
If HClinton, then Obama
If Dodd, then Kerry
If Edwards, then Clark
If Feingold, then Warner
If Gore, then Kerry
If Kerry, then Obama
If Kucinich, then Clark
If Richardson, then Edwards
If Warner, then Edwards

[saltpoint]

2. Hi, rosesaylavee. Good list. Your HClinton/Obama ticket would be

electifying. Those two would stir up a headline or two, is my guess.

Also thought your Kucinich/Clark ticket has some real punch. A people's liberal and a people's general on the same bill. Not bad at all.

[snowbear]

3. So... you want us to mix and match them?

Okay..

If is the nominee.. I would like...

or or or as the VP

[saltpoint]

4. Hi, larissa. no -- do all 12, since I'm hunching that one of those 12 wil

will be our nominee.

If Bayh, then ____________
If Biden, then ____________

... and so forth.

(nice photos!)

[snowbear]

5. OOps... I didn't follow the rules..

Sorry! me --->

[snowbear]

6. Okay, Crusoe's list, take two...

If Sen. Evan Bayh = General Clark
If Sen. Joe Biden = ditto
If General Wesley Clark = Governor Warner
If Sen. Hillary Clinton = Governor Brian Schweitzer
If Sen. Christopher Dodd = Governor Joe Manchin
If Sen. John Edwards = Governor Bill Richardson
If Sen. Russ Feingold = General Clark
If Vice President Al Gore = General Clark
If Sen. John Kerry = General Clark
If Congressman Dennis Kucinich = Senator Obama
If Gov. Bill Richardson = General Clark
If Gov. Mark Warner = General Clark

Don't make me take this test again.


LOL!

[saltpoint]

7. Hey, larissa, you're back in the ballgame with that list. Thanks.

I think your choice of Dodd/Manchin is really something. I hadn't considered it at all, and it's very refreshing.

And HClinton/Schweitzer would be provocative also. She's a midwesterner, then an Arkansan, now a New Yorker, and he's the real deal from Montana. Hell of a demographic range on that one. I like it.

[snowbear]

9. Thanks Crusoe...

I threw Manchin in there to balance out the ticket..

You know.. the Senator / Governor thing... the Northerner / Southerner thing..

All that stuff..

[saltpoint]

10. It's a refreshing possibility, if you ask me. Also we could use those

electoral votes Manchin represents.

[Rowdyboy]

8. What Fun! Okay, here's my take....

Numbers 2, 4, 5 and 9 are Clinton, Dodd, Biden and Kerry are all northeastern moderate liberals. Clinton and Obama would be electrifying for the novelty alone. Clinton/Richardson would be strong and I can easily see her picking Sweitzer, Bayh, or Warner.

Kerry is used goods. No way he will win our nomination. Should I be totally wrong, maybe he could go with something drastic to make people re-examine him-say Bill Gates. John Kerry lost me when he asked John McCain to consider joining the ticket in 2004. I have a hard time taking his bid seriously.

Dodd is about as deadly boring as John Kerry and would need serious star-power to have a chance, however he's FAR too much of an establishment boy to go take those sort of chances. He's pick Warner or Landrieu if he really got wild.

I could see Biden picking Bayh (Biden and Bayh has an intersting ring doesn't it?) but more likely Richardson or Sweitzer.

Numbers 3, 6, 8, and 12 are Clark, Edwards, Gore, and Warner, with Warner as the centrist, and Clark, Gore and Edwards as the liberals.

First, my main man Wesley. The general pairs very particularly well with Richardson, but also works with Sebelius, Landrieu, Bayh or Sweitzer. Hopefully, one of those will be the ticket.

Edwards/Bayh is good; also Sweitzer or Richardson.

Warner's more conservative than the others. He's be better paired with Feingold, Landrieu (or Blanch Lincoln) or Sebelius

If Gore runs, he has to really shake things up to stand a chance. You'll probably think I'm nuts but I'm saying Gore/Clinton would be the best shot for Al. Its one way to apologize for running away from the Clinton legacy in 2000.

Numbers 1, 7 and 10 are the midwesterners, Bayh, Feingold and Kucinich.

Bayh isn't 1/10th the man his father is. He's a solid centrist with apparently little imagination.
I think he's lean to maybe someone unlikely like Bresenden of Tennessee. Not the ticket I want to see.

Feingold....What can I say. He's a class act with damn little chance of winning. Feingold/Obama makes me all tingly; Feingold/Clark makes me dreamy eyed; Feingold/Sweitzer kicks Rethug butt. Wish it would happen.

I love Dennis Kucinich and I understand why you included him but it's not happening. However, if he were nominated, I'd say a Hispanic Western governor like Bill Ruichardson would be his perfect running mate.

Finally, the sole westerner in the race-Bill Richardson. He and Clark would kick serious foreign policy ass, but I'd also settle for Bayh, Warner or Sweitzer (an all west ticket would really rock the house!).

Okay, here's my list....

1. Bayh/Bresenden
2. Biden/Richardson
3. Clark/Richardson
4. Clinton/Richardson
5. Dodd/Landrieu
6. Edwards/Bayh
7. Feingold/Obama
8. Gore/Clinton
9. Kerry/Gates
10. Kucinich/Richardson
11. Richardson/Clinton
12. Warner/Feingold

Looking back at my analysis and answers its pretty easy to see that I expect to see Bill Richardson on tyhe ticket. I really didn't realize that before your question. Thanks for helping me sort through my thoughts with this question.

[saltpoint]

11. rowdyboy, you gave me more than I deserved with that response.

It was terrific. Thank you.

We aren't in the same place with some of the individual picks, but we share a kind of zeal for our party's chances, and I'm with you on several of your choices.

Richardson? He could pack a punch for us. Hispanic identity, with two languages (compared to zero for Bush). Plus, an energy expert when gas prices are so high and fossil fuels are so scarce. And last, as you say, he's a Westerner, and could make quite an entrance at our Denver convention. I'm still thinking it's going to be Denver.

Great thinking.

[Rowdyboy]

25. My friend, I don't know a single other Democrat I'm in perfect harmony...

with. Actually, the one person I agree most politically with is my partner's, ex-wife's new husband. Oddly enough, he posts at Daily Kos and is an incredible, diebolt-hating, Bush-loathing, Cheney-puking on progressive. We are all good friends and rather liberal Democrats (at least for Mississippi).

I enjoyed the handicapping exercise. Actually, I've been right twice picking a vp nominee since I got into politics in 1972. In 1992, I prayed that Clinton could see beyond their southern background and pick Al Gore. He did, and it was one of the best moves he ever made. In 1996, for some reason I just knew Dole would pick Kemp. Total intuition but I turned out to be right.

Sadly, every other election since 1972 I've been wrong...

Even a stopped clock...

[saltpoint]

27. If you got into politics in 1972, you are nobler than noble. That was

a damned tough year to get involved. But it sounds like nothing was apt to scare you off, and here you are.

If you've picked 2 veeps since then, you're two ahead of me. But I do like to mind-wander a bit on our 08 ticket. I'm eager to see what happens in the primaries later tonight, but we needed some kind of distraction, what with Dubya lying through his teeth on tv Monday evening, and the Far Right joining the chorus.

What's really stong about the Democrats right now is that a lot of those 12 could make a good ticket, in any order. I think we are going to come at the Republicans and really make 'em squirm.

You keep pickin' 'em and we'll get this little monkey out of the White House and clear the way for some good blue candidates!

Nice to see you as always on DU, Rowdyboy.

[Rowdyboy]

29. In 1972 I was a college freshman who didn't know jack shit about politics

The most humiliating thing I can admit to anyone is that I voted for Richard Nixon in November 1972.

By January 1973 I was one of the 8% of American's who wanted to impeach Nixon, for a variety of reasons-chief among them the impoundment of student aid funds, but that doesn't excuse my vote. I will never forgive myself, but I was very young.

From January 1973 on I've been a faithful, though not necessary involved party member. My career with state government made me fall under the Hatch Act which was pretty vigorously enforced in Mississippi.

Just keep thinking about the new, more progressive senate, with Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown, Sheldon Whitehouse, John Tester and the rest. Think about Governor Spitzer, Strickland, and O'Malley.

It's gonna be a DAMN FINE year.

And its always nice to see you, my friend. You ask intriguing questions and I love to hypothesize.

[saltpoint]

30. Rowdyboy, thank you for the kind words, but let's get this Nixon vote

cleared off the docket immediately. This is my proposal:

The point wasn't the vote for Nixon in 72; the point ws your decision to enter politics and become a voter, a participant in your democracy. That's a decision for heightened public service, and you made it. Millions of other Americans never make it, let alone when they're 18 or 19.

You placed yourself in the line of fire, because there was a lot of bad feeling in the air in 72. Vietnam was definitely a polarizing issue, and the rent in the fabric is still there. There's bravery in choosing to be a player when the easier path would have been to head for the hills.

In almost no time at all you were ready to impeach the president, suggesting that your political instincts were far superior to his. And he was driven from office in August of 74 after a flotilla of high-level Republicans marched into the White House and told him to get packing.

You were a year and half ahead of the Congressional leadership on that one, and not even 21 years old yet.

The statute of limitations on votes has long, long expired. We know you here as a genuine progressive, and that's where things stand with you and politics, and probably have stood so for 35 years. That's over a third of a century that you've been fighting the good fight. Look at your post on this thread on potential tickets for 08. Anyone on these boards can read what you've posted there and conclude, Damn, this is somebody I want working with me for Democrats to capture the House and the Senate, to work for the blue team.

You've long ago arrived. You did it after a Nixon landslide in 72 over McGovern. You did it with brains and instinct. And you did it right.

More power to ya, and if anybody says different, PM me. I'll be happy to kick their butt.

:toast:
:thumbsup: :dem:

[TayTay]

12. Hmmm, interesting list

If Bayh, then Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer
If Biden, then Gov Richardson
If Clark, then Sen HClinton
If HClinton, then Former Sen. Bob Kerrey
If Dodd, then Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer
If Edwards, then Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer
If Feingold, then Gov Richardson
If Gore, then Sen. John Kerry (who wouldn't take it.)
If Kerry, then Governor Kathleen Sebelius (D-Kansas)
If Kucinich, then John Edwards
If Richardson, then Sen. Evan Bayh
If Warner, then Sen. Barach Obama

Food for thought.

[saltpoint]

13. Nutritious and tasty food it is, too. Hi, Tay-Tay. A very good list.

I see Gov. Schweitzer is prominent in your thinking, and properly so. An excellent choice if you ask me.

And Sebelius as a running mate for John Kerry? That's excellent.

Having Gore and Kerry as our ticket -- no matter what order -- would be a compelling ticket for historians. It wouldn't escape notice that both were rightly elected to the highest office, that both were cheated by a decidedly lesser man, and that both are comprehensively qualified to lead the nation.

I'm not surprised you came up with a persuasive list of very electable tickets, but I say thanks for it just the same.

[snowbear]

14. I agree with TayTay.. Schweitzer would be great on a ticket..

Face it.. the guy is very effective - very high approval marks. (Not so sure you could pry him away from Montana though! )

[saltpoint]

15. I could surely see the man loving the Big Sky Country so much that

he'd never leave. It's that beautiful. Almost painfully beautiful. I wouldn't blame him for his sound judgment, but he's such a good Democrat that we could use his help in many other places.

He's a good man.

[hopein08]

16. I'm game...here you go...

If Bayh, then Gore
If Biden, then Richardson
If Clark, then Clinton
If HClinton, then Warner
If Dodd, then Biden
If Edwards, then Bayh
If Feingold, then Clark
If Gore, then Kucinich
If Kerry, then Edwards
If Kucinich, then Dodd
If Richardson, then Kerry
If Warner, then Feingold

[saltpoint]

17. It looks like you have some winners in there, hopein08. Your user

name seems to go pretty well with this thread!

If Gore got the nomination, picking Kucinich would be a very bold stroke. It would instantaneously piss off the Republicans, and would be worth it just for that, not to mention you'd get Dennis Kucinich, a wonderful human being, in a very influential and strategic position. That is one exciting call.

If HClinton gets the nod, Mark Warner would round the edges of that ticket, and maybe give it a boost from the middle. The Republicans think HClinton is too liberal; liberals think she's too Republican. Warner might be the glue that brings it all together for that ticket, who knows? A lot of people like Warner all over the country.

And you're running Kerry and Edwards together again -- I would have no touble voting for that ticket once more, even more enthusiastically than in 04, and for all I know, it might happen, too.

Thank you.

[hopein08]

32. Thanks...

I like how you described the Clinton/Warner possibility.

Although honestly, I am not a HClinton fan and I do not think that she could win as the first name on a ticket. There is more of a chance for her as the #2 name on a ticket, but the lead name would need to be great. And, of course, this is all my humble opinion.

I really do think Kerry/Edwards would be a good choice together again.

Oh, and thanks for the compliment on my username! When I picked it people here kept telling me to switch in to hopein06...but my whole point was the presidential election.

[saltpoint]

34. Well, it's good for both 06 and 08 and beyond. I'm glad you're on our

side and not the bad guys' side.

Tonight the Rhode Island, New York, Minnesota, Arizona, etc -- the primary states' results begin to come in and we'll see how things look for November 7th.

I still think the Democrats are in pretty good shape. Hard work remains, but many of us are ready for it.

I think it will do our spirits good to have a real happy night on Nov. 7th. I expect DU to be really hopping around 10:00 p.m. or so on Nov. 7th. It's going to be a wild one!

[bobbolink]

18. Which ones of 'em have strong stands on poverty?

Don't remember ANY of 'em speaking out, except Kucinich and he dropped it a long time ago.

So...?

Anyone at all for poor folk to vote for?

[saltpoint]

19. Happy to report, bobbolink, our Democrats by and large do better

than the other guys on just about every economic issue.

If you want, you can check out these websites and gather information on some candidates' stands on the issues:

http://www.betterworldlinks.org/book109s.htm

[bobbolink]

20. it couldn't be worse, now, could it? Doesn't mean they have any

priority with poverty issues.

They just aren't there.

I like Feingold, but... not a peep out of him.

Same for Gore.

:shrug: I guess the votes of poor folk just aren't that important.

Not to mention, our lives.

[saltpoint]

21. You haven't looked at those links I provided.

If you do you'll find many emphasis points on economic democracy.

One example is John Kerry's health plan for under-insured or non-insured Americans; another is John Edwards' One America Committee.

Those proposals are but two of many among our candidates.

A third example is Rev. Al Sharpton's speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. You can have a look at it in its entirety here:

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/convention2004/alsharpton2004dnc.htm


I disagree with your conclusion and suggest that you give our team a closer look.

[bobbolink]

22. sigh.... don't assume, OK?

I actually know more than you think I do, and have followed this very closely. So, don't assume, OK?

The fact is, as postings at DU show, Dems aren't strong on poverty issues. It simply isn't a priority. As I said. For people like me, it hurts to see it ignored over and over and over.

Kerry's health care proposal is sad. HR676 is ever so much better, is passable, and should be supported by ALL DEMS.

Yes, John Edwards is the ONLY DEM who has kept poverty as a main issue. When he "had a chat" with Lamont, got him to realize the importance of poverty (to the point that Lamont actually *apologized* for not including it in his campaign to that point!), he cheered me tremendously.

BUT--- Edwards only talks about "the working poor". The rest of us are, what.... chopped liver? We can just hurl ourselves off the nearest cliff?? I've written to Edwards three times now, pleading with him to not overlook people like me. No response, and, more importantly, no change in his focus.

Whenever I bring up the poverty issue on DU, and how it's overlooked by the Dems, there are those who want to convince me that it's otherwise. I wish it was. It doesn't take much looking around to see that being overlooked is exactly what poor folk are.

[saltpoint]

23. I find your criticism to be unfounded.

You aren't posting to the question asked.

You are backhanding all Democrats unfairly and inaccurately.

I don't see the point of your response, frankly.

If you want to do a poverty-emphasis thread, that's great. But this thread is about 2008 tickets.

Would be curious to hear your response to Rev. Sharpton's address at the Convention. He seems quite a bit more enthusiastic about Democrats than you do.

[saltpoint]

24. I somehow doubt that members of the Democratic Party want you

to hurl yourself off a cliff.

You might be thinking of the Republicans.

[bobbolink]

31. Actually, they've made it clear they don't give a rip one way or the

other.

The sad state of this union isn't all the fault of the RW. We Dems have a lot to account for, and some of that is our lack of concern for those in poverty.

It's very clear for those who want to see it.

Look at all the posts, begging and pleading with people to take a few seconds to call or write about a poverty issue. Usually disappears in a short time. Why is that? Because the RW made DU do it?

There is something here that can be changed for the good, and fixed, if Dems want to.

Hanging onto denial and a defensive posture don't accomplish anything positive.

You're welcome to walk in my shoes for a short time, and see what it feels like. That's how Dems *used* to respond to people. That's why we made strides in Civil Rights and other issues.

Now, it seems to be deny, deny, deny, and then attack.

Your choice.

[saltpoint]

33. It is indeed my choice, and I choose to vote Democratic.

I recommend it to you as well.

I like the blue team a lot better than the red team.

I think you've dramatically misread the set of circumstances about the Democratic Party's commitment to the unheard and under-insured, especially as opposed to the Republican Party's commitment to same.

And you've lost the trail of this post from the word Go.

[bobbolink]

35. It's so easy to accuse someone who disagrees with you of being

a RWer, isn't it?

That'll get the party far.

So long....

[saltpoint]

36. 'Been a Dem a long time. No plans for any change.

Thanks for your strange attack on Democrats in this thread.

[CrazyForKucinich]

26. This is easy!

If Bayh, then Kucinich
If Biden, then Kucinich
If Clark, then Kucinich
If HClinton, then Kucinich
If Dodd, then Kucinich
If Edwards, then Kucinich
If Feingold, then Kucinich
If Gore, then Kucinich
If Kerry, then Kucinich
If Kucinich, then Conyers
If Richardson, then Kucinich
If Warner, then Kucinich

[saltpoint]

28. What about Kucinich? Have you considered him at all?

:hi:

:dem:

[saltpoint]

37. Other names might be considered, too. Marcie Kaptor?

Blanche Lincoln?

Charlie Rangel?

Jim Jeffords?

Patty Murray?