Al Gore's VP pick

I have no idea whether Al Gore will run or not. I rarely post polls like this because I consider them to be of little or no value. Nevertheless, I am curious how DU will respond.

There are two parts to this question: a poll question and a discussion question.

The poll question is: If Al Gore gets the nomination, whom would you PREFER to see him choose for VP?

The discussion question is: Which VP choice would give the ticket the best chance of winning? Hopefully, this thread will lead to some discussion and analysis and not just the quick hit and run of clicking a checkbox.

VP picks are listed alphabetically. I included people I was interested in getting feedback on. If you don't like the choices, choose "Other" or start your own poll.

I love Randi, but she'd suck as a politician. :) Voted for Boxer because she takes no shit.

:evilgrin:

Yeah, he's dead, but he'd still beat John Ashcroft.

I'd like a woman as VP too.

Seriously, if this guy enters the race, he could pick a dog turd as his Veep and he'd win in a walk.


Waitasec, didn't he do that in 2000?


My Precious...

:rofl:

which is about as silly as expecting Gore to run.

Bring in the Independent flair.

I get shivers to think that POS almost became VP, and had he done so, Lieberman would be today the presumptive nominee.

He's the one I'd prefer, AND I think he'd give the ticket the best chance of winning.

do you think there's any merit to balancing a ticket geographically? I believe Clark is from Arkansas. Is that correct?

any problem with two southerners on the ticket or do you think it's a non-issue? I suppose some would point to Clinton-Gore as a parallel.

btw, I don't think geography is much of an issue anymore.

I'm a native New Englander and I HATE it that it's considered a negative -- hate that whole notion that northerners will vote for southerners, but not vice-versa; women will vote for men, but not vice-versa; black people will vote for white people, but not vice-versa, etc... It may be true, but on the other hand it builds prejudices into our equation and involves pandering to them. Strategically necessary or not, the whole thing bugs me no end.

So I think two New Englanders, for example, would be seen as imbalanced, while two southerners wouldn't be a problem. To my own thinking, it doesn't matter either way. Gore and Clark have southern roots but both strike me as so worldly they go beyond it. Gore spent so many years in Washington, and Clark has worked all over the place; so where they call home isn't as defining to them as it is to people who make a point of calling attention to it and sort of defining themselves by it.

They each are identified with America as a nation more than the region where they came from. Al Gore because he served 8 years as our Vice President, one of only two positions elected on a national basis in America, and as VP he represented all Americans, not just those from TN.

Wes Clark because he wore the uniform of the United States for (I think it was) 37 years. He represented the United States military, not the Arkansas national guard, and he lived in numerous states and nations throughout his military career.

Personally, I think they both share a fortunate hybrid identity. Coming from the South originally helps in red state appeal, but their subsequent national careers blunts some mild anti-southerner bias that does pop up some in other regions.

;)

:thumbsup:

Deval Patrick?

Randi Rhodes?

Drugs a bit early today?

Why is he not included?

oops ... Feingold would have been a good one ... also would have liked to include Gary Hart ...

maybe in my next poll ... sorry about that ...

He seems to be too good for the US Senate.

Two of them on the same ticket spells disaster. Too much baggage with all the legislation they have to sign, often holding their noses, as to get something good passed there usually are bad things included which muddy the waters and provides a field day for those doing "oppo" research.

That said, I love them both, just not on the same ticket.

"Two of them on the same ticket spells disaster."

If by "them" you are referring to Gore as a Senator, he WAS a Senator almost 15 years ago, but now he's known for being VP.

Nixon showed us that not only can former Senators win, they can get re-elected in landslides.

"Too much baggage with all the legislation they have to sign, often holding their noses, as to get something good passed there usually are bad things included which muddy the waters and provides a field day for those doing "oppo" research."

I don't see how any of this would be different with other candidates.

"That said, I love them both, just not on the same ticket."

Why? They're both experienced. They both appeal to the liberal base while being able to reach out to others. Feingold outperformed Kerry in Wisconsin in 2004, and his grassroots style would perfectly suit the kind of campaign we need.

The Democrats are also in very real danger of losing the Midwest - Kerry lost Iowa and almost Wisconsin in 2004 - and we need someone not only from that region, but from a state with a Democratic Governor, to shore up support in that region.

A Gore/Feingold ticket would provide some great ticket balance. I don't see why you are opposed to the idea.

He was similar to Gore in that sense.

Al Gore isn't running. So I'd pick the Easter Bunny. His opponents will be Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.

Gore would institute an innovative new program whereby the Vice President is a digital composite of all voting citizens of the United States. The digital composite would be projected on to the "face" of a cuddly Teddy Ruckspin <sp> like stuffed bear.

the candidate who they think will win.

My preferred candidate would be Kucinich. Of course, I'd rather have him getting the nomination. I think indeed Wesley Clark as running mate would be the ticket that gets them into the WH.

Since I don't think Edwards would run for VP again.

:)

A Gore/Clark ticket is an automatic winner, an unstoppable force against anyone the Pukes throw out there. If Gore were to announce his candidacy he should also announce that Clark is his running mate right off the bat.

I posted this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3018048

The final line of that OP was "And as for a sure fire winning team: Sticky Sez: Gore/Clark 08. That's not Stinky's personal favorite ticket, but it is the one that will win in a landslide."

However, I do not think that there is any chance that Al Gore will run. Especially when you look at the amount of money that Hillary and Obama already have.

A gentle pres with a bulldog vp seems to be a good formula.

I have made this mention before, and I am going to continue to do so. This nomination would remove the "Dems play partisan politics" arguement. A true cross ticket that has not been seen since before the Constitutional Amendment that changed the rule where second place got the VP slot. Thoughts?

... I guess it's Wes Clark.

But, I'd actually prefer to see Edwards as the VEEP and Clark as Secretary of State. I also like the sound of Speaker Kucinich, but I realize that's a legislative beauty contest, and I'm afraid Congress is too fucking dumb to appreciate that kind of beauty.

Since he isn't running anyway (I have mixed feelings about it), why not have him be President as he is today and through the magic of video editing and computer animation wizardry, have Al Gore from the '90s be the VP...

Why not? It's all on TV anyway...

Bill Moyers.

A Texan. A Baptist minister. And not bad on his feet. That's my first choice.

Best chance of winning. Well, almost all the ones n your poll selections and the ones others have mentioned would be winners, IMO, although for Gore this time, I think Brian Schweitzer might be an exciting choice. It freshens Gore's profile, asserts a new generation Democratic governor onto the national platform, it means a strong Democrat from a state west of the Mississippi walks onto the nominating stage in Denver, it builds a party response to a future nominee for president, it potentially wins us the White House for 16 consecutive years -- which is a boatload of Supreme Court appointments -- and it puts the classiest dog in Christendom in the nation's capital.

Gore-Schweitzer.

the real motivation behind this poll was to get people to think outside the box. it's time we moved beyond "the usual suspects" and opened up the process to "thinkers" from other backgrounds. Moyers would be an especially interesting choice.

I vaguely remember reading about Schweitzer and thinking he was too conservative for my tastes. He certainly appears to be politically popular though.

I'm thinking of running another poll that would ask how the VP should be selected. Should it be left up to the party? the nominee? the number two vote getter in the primaries? a national primary just for VP after the nominee is selected? Not sure how that poll would turn out ...

since the smoky backroom-dealin' days. But there's plenty of room for some more input and consideration.

Good post as usual, welshTerrier2.

Of course now, I would like to see a President Kerry. That is not going to happen in 08 though, so if by some miricle Gore stepped in I would very much consider voting for him.