A Clinton/Obama ticket would be simply amazing, but she's too calculating for that. Edwards would bring in women votes, which Hillary doesn't need. I know she is going to pick a man who just exudes hardassery, like Dick Cheney. Does this mean she has to pick a relative unknown, a dark horse to balance out her prominence in national politics for the past 11 years?
I think she's wrong to not pick Obama as her running mate, but no way she risks losing the Presidency because she stupidly chose a black guy as her VP. I think he would draw enough young people, though, and she has the oldies in the bag.
2007-09-27 20:47:55 · 15 answers · asked by Mer? 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
If Hillary wins the nomination, Obama will not be the VP nominee because he does not bring her votes that she would not already get. With her roots in Illiniois, she does not need someone from Illinois on the ticket.
With Mark Warner having announced that he is running for U.S. Senate in Virginia, that leaves her with three viable choices.
First, as mentioned above, Governor Richardson has to be considered. Aside from his solid credentials, he would help secure the Hispanic vote which could very well make the difference in New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and Colorado (Texas is probably still out of reach and California should be a lock). If those four states go Democratic, the election is over.
Second, there is Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana. He would help her chances in Indiana and surrounding states as well as appealing to moderate swing voters. His down side is that Indiana is probably not winnable and it is unclear if he has sufficient regional influence to swing Ohio.
Third, there is Governor Tom Vlisick of Iowa. Again, a solid choice to appeal to moderates. He would probably lock up Iowa which would get the ticket one-third of the way to picking up the 18 electoral votes needed.
There are other possible names, but they are all reaches. If she goes with someone like Wesley Clark or Max Cleland, it would mean that her internal polling indicated that she was in solid shape and just needed someone to help fend off right-wing attacks by solidifying military credentials. Bob Kerrey is out of consideration for this possibility for the same reason that Mark Warner -- the party needs him more as a Senate candidate in Nebraska.
If going for a real dark horse, take a look at the map of Governors: Mike Easley of North Carolina, Brad Henry of Oklahoma, and Dave Freudenthal of Wyoming would all give the Republicans fits of having to defend their base. If poll numbers stay the same, Democrats might convince Easley to run for Senate against Elizabeth Dole instead.
2007-09-27 21:20:15 · answer #1 · answered by Tmess2 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Her choice will come down to this: Try and lock down a potentially contentious state, or try to open up a battle ground state.
If she decides to lock down a state that probably leans her way but might turn into a battleground, the choice should be Jim Doyle, popular two term governor of Wisconsin.
If she wants to open up a battleground, she should pick either Easley of NC or Bayh of Indiana.
As for some of the other's mentioned, Richardon (the man I'd want in the job) as pretty much made a Sherman statement about the VP, Vilsack will make a fine interior secretary, Clark will be an adequate SoD, and Obama will be secretly hoping for her to go down to the gop nominee so he can emerge as the consensus choice in 2012.
2007-09-28 01:43:50 · answer #2 · answered by Hawv 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
By law, the President and the VP have to be from different state, so no... But if Bill moved back to Arkansas before the general election (or before he was put on the ticket) than there is nothing legally stopping it... (except that he has already served 2 terms... I should stop drinking in the morning) EDIT : Agnostic crusader... you are wrong. Read Article 2 of the Constitution...
2016-05-20 22:12:55 · answer #3 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think Obama would be a good choice. He would bring in a lot of the intelligent voters because he speaks very well. He would appeal to many of the youtrh and the idea of a black in the VP should draw some of the black vote. True that the racists and rednecks will vote against him, but those are the 33% that will vote for republicans anyhow.
Bill Richardson is not likely just because his name is Bill, like her ex-husband.
Sorry but sometimes politics is just that stupid.
2007-09-27 21:03:16 · answer #4 · answered by Y!A-FOOL 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I respectfully disagree on Clinton winning the nomination. I believe she will get "Dean'd" and the nod will eventually go to John Edwards..
But, i'll play your game.. If she wins she will take Obama, or Biden.
2007-09-28 02:21:11 · answer #5 · answered by The Peav 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
She should choose one of the republicans as VP ..balance the power in the white house...she wont be able to get anything done with another liberal beside her.
2007-09-28 02:13:23 · answer #6 · answered by Kim 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
She won't win the nomination because of Slick Willy and the Pizzagate debacle all because of a stupid picture. Pathetic. She definitely just lost NY.
2007-09-27 23:35:31 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Kucinich
2007-09-27 21:49:39 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Without Bill Richardson, she absolutely, positively beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt can NOT win the election, and I think she knows it.
2007-09-27 20:53:36 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Dream on! If she would happen to win the nomination it will guarantee a Repub win. Do you really want that?
2007-09-28 01:29:11 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋