English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I think she should go with a southerner to balance the ticket.John F. Kennedy had the right idea when he chose Lyndon Johnson from Texas, to be his running mate. Al Gore's choice of Joseph Lieberman has to be the dumbest move in the history of electoral politics.

2007-08-01 13:41:17 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

18 answers

Agreed about the Gore-Lieberman ticket, but remember Gore was the southern democrat, and Lieberman was the conservative New Englander. It didn't work, but it was trying to use the same principles.

Hillary will have an interesting choice to deal with in the event of her selection by the democrats. On one side, a mass of people (about 20% of the independents) will not vote for her no matter what. She's not going to win the South no matter what. The regional diversity she could actually cash in on would be the West and Southwest. This could lead to her picking a Western conservative: Think Vilsack, Udall (from Colorado), maybe going for a Richardson (big in the South West). The truth is the only candidate that could possibly change the color of Southern states would be John Edwards (who could sway S. Carolina and maybe one other state).

So, if you ask me, she will need to diversify geographically as you correctly note. However, she will have to go to the South West and not to the South, which I don't think there is any chance of her winning.

2007-08-01 13:55:40 · answer #1 · answered by C.S. 5 · 0 0

I think Gore would have won if Nader didn't siphon votes away. Hillary would be considered a southern democrat being from Arkansas. So two southerns on the ticket might turn off a larger base. She might be better getting a blue dog from the west coast.

2007-08-01 13:46:28 · answer #2 · answered by JFra472449 6 · 1 1

I'd like to see Bill Richardson on the ticket somewhere. VP to Clinton? I think she's not electable. Same with Obama. Edwards is coming off as being too slick. As a staunch Democratic Party member, I worry about the current field of candidates.

2007-08-01 13:46:49 · answer #3 · answered by iwasnotanazipolka 7 · 1 2

It really doesn't matter who runs with Hillary, Republican'ts hate her husband and what he stands for so much, they'll vote for Yogi and Boo-boo to avoid her in the White House again.

If the Democrats want to win, they need to avoid the "Republican't lite" philosophy, and be different from Bush, McCain, Thompson, et.al. They should tell the truth, and spend more (yes, I said MORE) on education, medicare, and Social Security.

2007-08-01 15:51:36 · answer #4 · answered by for Da Ben Dan--Dennyhill 5 · 0 0

positioned it this type, Liberals tend to think of of society as proper and push to do the flaws that could make society "proper". they like each and every person to make a similar volume of money, no person to be impoverished, and there be usual healthcare. regrettably, that's no longer the case. it particularly is an proper society. in many circumstances, Conservatives tend to think of of issues slightly greater realistically, yet do in many circumstances bypass approximately affirming recommendations the incorrect way. the full gay marriage ingredient nevertheless isn't on a similar time as much as the federal government to return to a call so this is pointless for them to argue approximately it. this is not any longer defined in any area of the form for congress, the president, or the splendid court to make any decision. basically like abortion don't have been left to the federal government and would have been ignored, yet those are basically examples. Conservatism is greater of a you do your area, I do mine. We leave one yet another on my own attitude. Liberalism is a permit's help one yet another and each thing is okay attitude. normally. Regardless, think of, do no longer basically connect aspects. this is uncomplicated to tell the place I lie, yet like I stated, aspects do no longer count. Vote on subject concerns, no longer human beings.

2016-11-10 23:21:06 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

She has already had meetings with Jethro from the Beverley Hillbillies, and they've been measuring all the furniture in the White House to see ifn' it will fit in his old truck. He's real smart about that cyferen to see if stuff will fit somewares.
Did'je err hear em do his 'ga-zintas'? You know, like 2 ga-zinta 4--- 2 times. ---He'll do right good at that budgit thing.
Hope this helps.

2007-08-01 14:02:47 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

It makes no difference who the #2 is. That is seriously overrated. And Hillary will not win a single southern state anyway. She is hated in the south. She will carry the black votes in the south, but that's not enough to win any states. If she wins the election is will be the northern liberals and California who give it to her. God Bless America if she wins.

2007-08-01 13:54:45 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 3

Common political tactic -- choose a running mate that attracts a different segment of your target voter base.

2007-08-01 13:43:31 · answer #8 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1 1

It is time to put someone from the West on the ticket.

2007-08-01 14:00:57 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I think Bill Richardson is the best choice for VP.

2007-08-01 14:00:13 · answer #10 · answered by Chance20_m 5 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers