Keep the Northeast off the '08 ticket

[Radical Activist]

In the last two Presidential elections we saw one person on the ticket come from a safely blue Northeastern State. Do we really need another person from that region in a state that will go blue anyway? Should we allow Republicans to make another campaign about the culture war between North and South?

Like it or not, nominating a wealthy man from New England played right into the stereotype of "liberal elites" Republicans use to win votes in the South and Midwest. I see several people from that region frequently mentioned as candidates. Are we going to make that mistake again? Candidates from Middle America have an advantage in connecting with a larger number of voters.

[blm]

1. I see that postKatrina, people are less likely to be swayed by 'good old boy" type perception.

The world has become a far too dangerous place and activists should be ASHAMED of parroting the lying media on any of their PETTIEST tallking points against Dem leaders.

[Radical Activist]

4. I don't know what that refers to.

I haven't made any statements today that I had to take from the corporate media. Some things are pretty easy to see from personal experience and denying what's right in front of our eyes to defend a personal favorite doesn't help the party.

[blm]

6. 'liberal media' "Northeast liberals" it's all the same bullshit - postKatrina, post9-11

this country needs more bullshit like a hole in the constitution - oh wait - we already have that thanks to the coverup Democrats who will let BushInc off the hook every time they are in charge.

[Radical Activist]

7. There is a reason

more people connect with a man of Bill Clinton's background than John Kerry's. The media and Republicans aren't all to blame for that.

[blm]

10. More people knew guys who dodged the draft than those who went to Nam?

Clinton got WHAT percentage of the vote even AFTER the people knew him? Kerry got 60-65 million votes - and exit polls said he actually beat the 'likable' Bush by 5%.

Besides - Clinton had a huge advantage - he had Kerry working 5 years prior to his run to take Bush1 down with his constant investigations. Kerry had Clinton palling around with the BUshes and supporting Bush2 on most of his policy decisions for 4 years.

[Clark2008]

50. You and I don't agree often, but on this, we completely agree.

[CTyankee]

58. As a Northeast liberal, I agree

which is why I think Clark and a Western or midwestern governor would be an ideal ticket.

Let's give the NOrtheast a rest, already. We are seeing some really good energy coming out of the new west and some breakthroughs in the midwest. With Clark being Southern, having great expertise on foreign policy and likeable to lots of military folks, I think we'd have a winning combination.

Don't get me wrong: I like John Kerry. My son in law in Boston worked on his campaign, running focus groups in 3 states. We thought nothing of Kerry's windsurfing in Nantucket, because we head for Martha's Vineyard every July and wear our Black Dog shirts and eat lobstah. But other people across the country just think that's strange and they have no idea where Nantucket and MV actually are!

[KingFlorez]

2. Region shouldn't be an issue

We need a candidate who can appeal to people in states we haven't won previously, but region doesn't have to factor into that. Focusing on region has caused a divide.

[Radical Activist]

3. Maybe it shouldn't be, but it is.

People react differently to people from different regions of the country. We can pretend that isn't true, but it will only hurt us to deny reality.

[Little Wing]

5. There's no such thing as a middle-class candidate for President

In fact, Presidents should be forced to panhandle for money for the entire year immediately after they leave office.

In a Burka.

That'll get em busy.

[Radical Activist]

9. True, except Dennis Kucinich.

I've been to his house and Middle Class is the only way to describe his home and neighborhood.
But the poll wasn't really about class.

[benny05]

55. I like Dennis

he's not my choice for 2008, but House of Reps who run for President often have an agenda to push, and Dennis's would prove to be powerful in the long run.

[bluerum]

8. I'd say based on the results of last (p)residential election, we better

hope that no more small dicked cowboys get into office.

[Radical Activist]

11. But that cowboy act sure worked for him didn't it?

Maybe he knows something about how to appeal to voters beyond the New England state he was born in.

[blm]

12. Yeah -people are BEGGING to be fooled again postKatrina, post Iraq war.

.

[Mr_Spock]

13. 2 is emotionally correct, 3 is pragmatically more likley to be correct

...not that it matters, I will vote for whatever Dem is nominated.

[Radical Activist]

14. True.

I intend to be involved in the primaries as well.

[Bucky]

35. I hate it when you're right.

Actually, I don't. But I do really hate the fact that half of the country won't give a fair shake to a Massachusetts candidate. I'm encouraged that even without the "fair shake" half the people voted for Kerry, but stylistically he really seemed to rub a lot of people down here the wrong way. It sucks that externals matter that much. I always thought he'd make a pretty decent president; my concerns about his candidacy have always been cosmetic; all about marketing and nothing about substance.

[Doctor_J]

15. Let's jump on our populist momentum from the West

Bring me a Schweitzer or Richardson or McCaskill or Napalitano or Clark.

[skipos]

20. Have you signed the "draft Schweitzer" petition in my signature? nt

[Nite Owl]

16. But the GOP has three candidates

wanting to make a run in '08, Ghouliani, Romney and Pataki. It's ok for them to have the image but not us?
They say that they are conservatives but compared to the rest of their party not so much. And the way that the NE threw out the GOP this month I wonder if they could even be elected here now.

[Radical Activist]

21. Republicans running a Northeaster candidate is like

Democrats running a Southerner. It is outside their base and expands their pool of potential voters. Republicans will be playing it smart if they choose one of those candidates.

And its true that because Republicans are the ones playing the culture war game, they won't suffer from picking a New Englander the way Democrats will. No, that's not fair but that's how it is.

[benny05]

56. Agree

That's why Mitt is getting so much attention.

[neoblues]

17. On the other hand, maybe we should keep the Un-Charismatic off instead...

With some candidates that can dynamically express our vision while slapping the other side silly with their own ubiquitous flaws, we'll probably win the Presidency easily.

Of course, we also have to choose ones who are both intelligent and true to our values. Alas, it goes without saying that one has to do with what one has, and it seems we don't seem to have many leaders with great charisma. If we can at least restore integrity in the mainstream media, it likely wouldn't take as much personal appearance to convey the valid leadership qualities of our candidates. Arguably, it doesn't require that much personal charisma to be a great leader, but it does seem necessary to get elected in the world of the soundbite, especially if one is facing a deficit of media access.

The other side seems to have more of those with the appearance of charisma, but it's mostly appearance--image, and it covers serious flaws, lack of intelligence and worse, an absence of honesty and integrity. Besides, they're ideology is bankrupt, selfish, intolerant and, in a word, evil (unenlightened). These are such important matters that the country can ill afford to have another Republican President for the forseeable future (give us a few decades to restore America before we let them begin their program of destruction again)(not that we would ever want that again).

Region itself shouldn't matter much, if at all. Experience can sometimes matter, but to the extent that previous experience is a consideration, it seems to me it's this; Congressional candidates have a handicap in that the nature of their jobs (negotiation; compromise; consensus making) allows their record to create the false appearance of inconsistency (and perhaps other illusions; and it's just not strong evidence of personal executive decision making ability), while on the other hand, say, the experience as a governor of a state does appear to resemble that which the leader of a country would face. Congressional experience ought not to count against a candidate, but since a surprising proportion of the electorate doesn't even seem to know what the job description of a President is, much less understand the qualities that would be desirable therefore.

At least George Bush has taught many people just how important the decision of who becomes President truly does matter and is very important; elect an insane, spoiled little rich kid/adult delinquent, dry drunk with father-envy and, well, he really can screw the country. Perhaps people will look at the qualities (honesty, integrity, respect for proper government/the will of the people and absence of corruption, etc) of the candidates more closely when making their decisions; which ought to stand well in favor of the Democrat--whoever it turns out to be.

[skipos]

18. It shouldn't matter, but it does. Lets look at the last 6 Democratic presidential candidates'

first run for office.

The three best performances in the electoral college were:
Clinton (Ar)
Carter (GA)
Gore (TN)

The three worst electoral performances were:
Kerry (MA)
Dukakis (MA)
Mondale (MN)

[Radical Activist]

22. Thank you n/t

[mitchum]

19. I don't want ANYMORE southern Dems at the top of the ticket

southern Dems out of perceived necessity have to be "moderate" That hasn't worked out too well with the last two who were elected, has it? Unless you liked the rightward lurch of the party both times. Fuck that. I refuse to genuflect at the legacies of Carter and Clinton.

[Radical Activist]

23. Those are different issues.

Clinton and Carter were both considered more progressive than most other Southerners. And, I think a Southern progressive is even more electable nationwide than a Southern moderate. That's why Edwards is appealing.

But if you don't like Southerns, that's fine. Pick someone from the Midwest or West. They will have a better chance getting elected than any New Englander.

[mitchum]

28. "Considered" and actually are two very different things

Neither Carter nor Clinton were actually progressive or liberal by a long shot.
Hell, in the south, progressive often means you wear a Laura Ashley sheet instead of a KMart brand to the local Klan rally.

[Dob Bole]

45. Thanks...

for a minute there, I almost forgot that everyone I know is in the Klan. Thanks for snapping me back into the 1890s where I belong!

[mitchum]

59. C'mon, it was a joke. I'm from the south and live in the south...

and am well aware that not everyone is a Ku Kluxer.
But you do have to admit that a true southern progressive is extraordinary because..well...they are so...extraordinary.
Name me one truly progressive southern governor or congressman (with the exception of John Lewis)
There ARE a lot of racist fuckheads in the south. And that fact does drive the culture. If you disagree with that, then explain to me how the repub "southern strategy" has been so effective over the past 40 years. I'll be waiting.

[Clark2008]

79. What's a "Southern?" eom

[Dob Bole]

49. And one more thing....please don't compare Carter to BILL CLINTON!

Carter sent aid to the Sandinista government, while Clinton allowed Reagan to use his airports to bomb them. Carter created the department of Education, while Clinton declared that 'the era of big government' was over. Carter had the Panama Canal Treaty, and generally friendly relations with Latin America. Clinton wasn't very friendly, but gave us the gift of NAFTA.

500,000 kids died because of Clinton, while Carter has a Nobel Peace Prize. Carter became President in 1976 out of nowhere, on the shoulders of Georgians, and built his legacy on service and human rights. Clinton built his legacy on the backs of American workers and the poor.

I know Jimmy Carter, and there's no comparison.

[mitchum]

60. There is a BIG difference between the Jimmy Carter of today...

and the vicious infighter of Georgia politics/ Carter of the presidency. THAT Jimmy Carter was no liberal. That is why I do not genuflect at the presidential legacy of Carter. Today's Jimmy Cater is a whole nother animal.
You may know Jimmy Carter, but apparently you didn't know that Jimmy Carter.

[Ninja Jordan]

24. I'm inclined to think there will be 'southern fatigue' following 16 years of Clinton/Bush

Doesn't mean I think we need a northeasterner (we all saw how well John Kerry could be framed). But I don't feel that Dems NEED to push a southerner to the front.

[Radical Activist]

26. I'd like to see a Midwesterner/Southerner ticket

With either one at the top. I think we'll be a lot more effective appealing to the swing states that way.

[Ninja Jordan]

27. The future of national politics lies in the West. I'd like a Westerner/Obama ticket.

But don't generally care one way or the other. I agree that it'd be unwise to nominate a NEer (Hillary, Biden, Kerry) for the reasons you mention. I may hold a minority opinion, but I dont feel the two biggest Dem names for '08 (Hillary and Obama) have a snowballs chance of winning the presidency. Obama is a rockstar though, and he would be a legitimate force as a running-mate. As evidenced in the midterms, he is a great campaigner and can motivate voters.

[Radical Activist]

25. Honestly, I don't know what planet some DUers are living on.

Maybe we have a lot of people from the Northeast who take this personally. You can say region SHOULDN'T matter all you want and in an ideal world it wouldn't. But, the reality is that picking another New Englander will allow the Republicans to make yet another campaign be about nothing but the Liberal Northern Elitist v. the God fearing all-american NASCAR fans. Why let them do that? Why give them that advantage?

We have plenty of great potential candidates from the South, Midwest and Mountain West. Nominating Hillary, Biden or Kerry will ensure the election is decided on the culture war, not the issues, and we will lose again. You can call people from the "flyover" states morons and small-minded for not liking New England candidates all you want, but then you'd be revealing exactly the reason why they don't like your region.

[mitchum]

29. Man, I'm FROM the south and I still don't want a southerner at the top...

of the ticket, for the reasons I stated in the earlier post.

[mitchtv]

30. that's why I have a tough time voting for Southerners

they can't look at the issues. If We object to their clannishness, it's our fault

[mitchum]

32. I don't blame you at all, mitchtv...

it is a maddening situation, and you are absolutely correct about the clannishness and the resulting hissyfits when it is pointed out to my southern "brethren"
But, then again, I love the south, but hate most southerners :)

[Radical Activist]

37. Or maybe

candidates from the Northeeast have a hard time looking at their Southern, Midwestern and rural issues and seeing it from their perspective. I've never met a Southerner that had a hard time coming up with issues to talk about.
Also, people can sense when you think you're better than they are, even if you don't say it. I'm not saying this to you personally, but it happens enough.

[grizmaster]

52. why argue like a moron when arguing with morons?

the last election proved their old memes are getting played out.

How about we choose a candidate based on qualifications instead?

[Radical Activist]

62. umm...

Who are the morons? People who keep making the same mistake when we pick our nominee? Or, are you showing why the rest of the nation believes the meme of New Englanders looking down their nose at the rest of the nation.

[grizmaster]

78. the morons are those who want to institutionalize ignorance

into our system. The ones who want science out of the classroom and creationism in. The ones who want to "deprogram" or imprison those who's sexuality doesn't agree with their ancient superstitions.

That and those foolish enough to think the way to progress is to appease the most ignorant traits in people NO MATTER WHERE they're from.

[Radical Activist]

84. Well its a good thing

I haven't argued any of those things. I don't think appealing to people from all regions means appealing to the ignorant because I don't think people in the South and Midwest are all arrogant, racist and homophobic. I'm sorry that you apparently do.

[ruggerson]

31. As a born and bred New Englander

The problem was not that John Kerry is from New England, the problem was that John Kerry is not an agile national politician.

If this thread was about the South, it would be locked. It's ok to bash New England as being "elitist" and "snobby" and all the other bullshit the media and the Republicans like to heap on it.

But the fact is, New England has the lowest divorce rate in the entire damn country. The area with the highest divorce rate? The bible belt.

New England doesn't have to preach family values nor the virtues of its culture, because it actually walks the walk.

No wonder the South feels like it has to bash New England all the time.

[mitchtv]

33. As a NewYorker

I can understand. Though I now live in Calif, I will always be a New Yorker. The most hated state in the union. jealousy

[Bucky]

36. NY may flatter itself with being "the most hated" state, but I'm pretty sure Mass. has it beat.

People out here in flyover country think New Yorkers are brash, but direct and sincere. The rap on the Bay State is that they're not real, not sincere, holier-than-thou, and two-faced. Such prejudices entirely disappear once you meet an actual human being from New England and get to know them. But then again a good dose of reality always ruins a comforting stereotype.

This is why it's so important for Rush Limbaugh to never have guests on his show.

[Radical Activist]

38. No one who uses the phrase "flyover" country will ever be elected President

People can sense when you think you're better than they are, even if you don't say it. That isn't about jealousy.

[mitchtv]

43. You could be half right

Add SF and LA and you have the most , most hated place

Remember the Daily News? "Bush to City: Drop Dead"

[Radical Activist]

39. Did you see the jib jab cartoon?

The one to the tune of "this land is your land." Did you see how Kerry was portrayed as living in a mansion and being a snobby intellectual while Bush was portrayed as an idiot living in a trailer park, even though both come from wealthy families and ivy league schools? People don't like to be talked down to and told their stupid. That Jib Jab cartoon was enjoyed by many Kerry supporters but it gives you a big clue as to why Kerry did so poorly in the South and rural areas.

You can keep nominating rich New Englanders to be President and let the Republicans continue playing the culture war game, but don't expect to win any national elections. It may offend your regional pride and you can look down your nose in condescension on Southerners with high divorce rates who don't give your region the respect you believe it is due, but that's how the nation is.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

42. So the rich New Englander who went to Vietnam

as a volunteer, saw combat, was decorated for valor and service with distinction, and today, as a memebr of congress, serves the lowliest grunt with his intense attention to veterans' issues- is somehow an elitist?
Something is wrong with that picture.

[Radical Activist]

63. well, that's how it played out

Whether its fair or not doesn't really matter. Yes, a very wealthy man with the air of superiority that comes from being a Senator was portrayed as an elitist. Big surprise!

[Mr_Spock]

98. So you think we should just play into the MSM stereotype machine?

I know what you mean - especially when referring to Kerry - but stereotyping all of us here in the Northeast based upon how the MSM played on Kerry's elitist sounding voice is really SMALL MINDED!!

[Mr_Spock]

97. Uh-oh, you are playing the stereotype card there

Jib-Jab is your reference guide to the Northeast?

Give me a FUCKING break, will ya!!?

I'm gonna be sick :puke:

[grizmaster]

53. DING DING DING

give the man a kewpie doll. been through this before when the discussion turns to the south. It's fine to accept asinine generalizations about NEers but not southerners.


"If this thread was about the South, it would be locked. It's ok to bash New England as being "elitist" and "snobby" and all the other bullshit the media and the Republicans like to heap on it."

[Radical Activist]

74. I didn't say I agree

with those stereotypes about New Englanders.

But, really no one has to type about those stereotypes when you've got people from New England writing about how ignorant and racist Southerners are. The snobby elitism becomes self-evident without pointing it out.

[grizmaster]

76. you claim you don't agree with the stereotype

then you reiterate it.

Letting your opponents bigotry decide your course is worse than foolish, and embracing your opponents bigotry is despicable.

[Radical Activist]

85. My top choice for now is Obama

Yeah, I'm really embracing bigotry. Sure. :eyes:

[Mr_Spock]

96. "If this thread was about the South, it would be locked."

Man, tell me about it!

I love how people feel they have some inalienable right to bash the living crap out of New Englanders.

Like you say, it's OK - we are upstanding people because we WANT to be, not because some RW ass hole behind a pulpit tells us what to do and how to act. Life up here is great.

[Hippo_Tron]

34. If your strategy is to play electoral math this early in the game, then yes

But I think that playing electoral math this early is foolish. You can speculate all you want about how candidate X will be able to compete in specific states where candidate Y will not be able to. The fact is that we don't know what the electoral map will look like in a year and a half and as much as we try to guess.

You have to compete in as many states as possible and narrow down only when you start to run out of money.

[Radical Activist]

40. Yes, you have to compete in as many states as possible.

I don't believe that is possible with a candidate from the Northeast, who will not be as competitive in the Midwestern and Southern swing states we need to win. Competing in as many states as possible necessitates not picking a NEer.

[mitchtv]

46. Case in Point

small minded - -parochialism. Yet you want to pass that small mindedness to everyone.I vote for the individual and don't buy the three G's that seem soooo important to the bible thumpers(who wouldn't know Christ if he came up and bit them)

[Radical Activist]

66. All your insults against the South

serve to give credibility to the stereotypes of New Englanders. People in the South do hear the insults and see the condescending attitude that many liberals have about them. That's exactly what makes getting a New Englander elected so unlikely.

[geek tragedy]

41. The point is moot: There are no Northeastern

candidates for 2008 worth a damn. Hillary's the best of that lot, and that's not saying a whole lot.

[Radical Activist]

64. good point.

[DuaneBidoux]

44. I want to WIN! Keep a NE candidate off the ticket (the democratic way of course)

[mitchtv]

48. Hopefully someone who knows how t o pronounce Nuclear

Carter couldn't nor can chimpy,But I expect that's too much to ask, too elitist.

[Dob Bole]

47. Chafee for VP?

It would be a nod to the 'Yankee Republicans,' welcoming them into the party.

Personally, Kerry was my last primary pick last time. .Iif I wanted any Northeasterner on the ticket this time, it would be Bernie.

[grizmaster]

54. fvck Chafee, he had his chance

and he chose to wear bush kneepads for 6 years. If he had the sense to switch parties in '03 he'd still be in office.


a proud Sheldon Whitehouse supporter

[grizmaster]

51. what an asinine way to value candidates

How about this, since we all know that the south is full of nothing but racist rednecks we shouldn't nominate anybody from there lest we give the repubs the chance to label us as ignorant racists.

[Radical Activist]

65. Winning isn't asinine.

[grizmaster]

75. valuing a candidate by your opponents bigotry is asinine

plain and simple.

Either you have a good candidate or you don't.

[depakid]

57. More from the parochial "south won't vote for..." Dept.

I have news- the fastest way to lose both the executive AND both houses of Congress again is to pander to the South and legitimize and enable the far right policies that are prevalent throughout the region.

[mitchum]

61. Complete agreement with you depakid (n/t)

[Radical Activist]

69. Its not just the South.

A lot of people in the Midwest were turned of by Kerry as well.
And no, picking someone who isn't from New England doesn't necessitate being conservative.

You can't win elections by pissing off everyone. We do have to appeal to some Southerners.

[zulchzulu]

67. OK..so a Southern '08 ticket takes away the "culture war" issue?

Wow...you are quite misinformed.

Ever hear of Clinton...or Gore...or Edwards...or Carter...or even Clark... they are tagged "liberals" and are even as "evil" as wealthy men from New England since they are also wealthy.

Yes, some people love to play the Provincialist Card...I think, in the end, most voters would want to focus on the issues in 2008. They've seen how character assassination of candidates with nasty campaigns doesn't necessarily get the best candidate to win.

If you're worried that any candidate would be demonized or not by the GOP in 2008, you need not. Just assume that they will be "demonized" in whatever way the shit sticks on the wall the longest.

[Radical Activist]

68. I didn't argue it has to be an all Southern ticket.

I can't look at what happened in the last two elections, what I see in the media, what I hear people say and then believe that a candidates' personality and where they're from won't matter. Your suggestion that the next election will be all about issues his hopeful but not a realistic expectation. It would require a dramatic change in the basic nature of most Americans and that isn't happening in two years.

How odd that your bring up Carter, Clinton and Gore. One reason Clinton and Carter carried several Southern states is that he came from a poor background in the South. Yes, it was much harder to use the culture war card against him. Yes, they were tagged liberals but were able to get beyond that. Its hard to portray Democrats as the party of northeastern liberal elitists when the Presidential candidate is neither.

I'm not worried about Republicans attacking us. I'm worried about a candidate that can connect with a majority of Americans and get beyond the "I'm voting Republican because Democrats are elitists who think everyone from the South is a racist moron."

[NJ Democrats]

70. For once I agree with that

Being from the NE, I have much loyalty and support for Northeastern candidates. However, in 2008 I believe it shoudl be Gore/Feingold or Gore/Obama or something like that

[Radical Activist]

73. Those sound like great tickets

that would probably win.

[MoonRiver]

71. I don't see this as a litmus test. No way.

It's all about the candidate and his/her appeal, electability, etc. I think a candidate from the Northeast could definitely win, although I do not currently support one from the NE.

[Radical Activist]

72. Yes its about appeal and electability

Don't you see the area a person is from being tied to that?

[MoonRiver]

80. Not necessarily. It's one piece of the whole.

I believe we have to look at the person in toto.

[LWolf]

77. How about this:

Instead of focusing on where the candidate comes from, how about where the primaries begin? It is laughable to vote in a primary when the nominee has already been decided by early voters/caucusers.

By the time the primaries begin, the candidates have campaigned all over the country. Couldn't we have one day for primaries? Or couldn't results not be announced until the last vote is cast?

[Radical Activist]

83. The problem I see with that

is that it only gives a chance to the candidates with the most money and national name recognition. It places the power to decide in the hands of the media and big donors even more so than it is now.

[LWolf]

87. Add public financing of elections; no donors,

an equal playing field for all? Or equal airtime for all?

[Radical Activist]

90. That would help even things out.

I do like the fact that people in a small state have the chance to meet all the candidates in person before they vote. It allows people to give closer scrutiny. That won't happen for a national primary.

Of course, if we're doing a national primary like you describe, we might as well have run-off elections instead of primaries.

[LWolf]

91. Run-off elections are an intriguing idea.

Depending on how they are structured, of course. Can anything and everything be corrupted?

[Alexander]

81. This is just as silly as those "dump the South" threads.

And being a Northeasterner who already puts up with tons of stupid assumptions and bias about the area, I will say that I am quite offended by your ability to join in the NE-bashing.

[Radical Activist]

82. Its not about bashing.

I don't think my OP bashed the Northeast. Its simply a matter of how to win.

[bunkerbuster1]

86. Keep people who vote for candidates based on state residency

...in re-education camps.

That's my solution and I'm sticking to it.

Seriously, how fucking stupid would a person have to be to say "I'm not voting for so-and-so because people from State X are WICKED"?

[election_2004]

88. Yes - if her name is HILLARY

I don't really have a problem with Dodd, and Whitehouse/Reed/Schumer are all cool with me...although honestly, I don't think any of them would add to the ticket very much.

Prez slot: Bayh, Clark, Richardson, Vilsack, or maybe Edwards if the others flounder

V.P. slot: Feingold, Lincoln, Sebelius, Stabenow, or Tubbs-Jones of Ohio

It's not a good idea, at this point, to run someone from NY, California, NJ, or any blue state that the Dems already have locked up for the Electoral College (although Spitzer and Obama would both be potentially good at the top of the ticket, several cycles from now).

[kath]

89. ELIMINATE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE, dammit!

It's a horrid anachronism.

Every other Western democracy has a plain old popular election of its head of state, and so should we.

[paulk]

92. The "northeastern" thing is a legitimate concern

There is a real bias in the south and midwest/mountain west against candidates from the northeast. Actually, there's a real bias against people from the northeast, something I personally experienced when I moved out here to Wyoming/Colorado from New York over 25 years ago. And things haven't changed that much.


Any Democratic candidate from the northeast (read: Kerry or Clinton) is going to have to balance the ticket with a VP from the midwest or mountain west. And NOT from the south. The biggest mistake Kerry made, IMO, was choosing a southerner as his running mate.

----------------------------


A point you've missed here, though, is the ability of eastern establishment candidates like Kerry or Clinton to raise money - because of their connections and location. It's an advantage they have over candidates from "middle America" that levels the playing field somewhat when it comes to connecting with voters.

[mitchtv]

93. Keep NorthEastern TAXES in the Northeast

God am I sick of these states (You know which) sucking up more than their share of tax money for highways to nowhere and the like ,through godforsaken states that collect -like the welfare queen states they are. Its fine to be conservative but please withdraw the outstreched hand. Our money is ok huh? while developed states go without the welfare collectors complain.

[paulk]

94. well, I don't share the attitude against northeasterners

that many out here have... but, I understand what you're saying. It's ironic that almost all of the "red" states are, as you call them, welfare states... there are only two "red" states that pay more to the fed than they get back... Colorado is one of them...
and we're turning "blue"...

[rep the dems]

95. It's probably better that we look elsewhere.

If the midterms are any indication, the entire northeast should be a Democratic stronghold in 2008. But being from PA, I hope people aren't too hesitant about northeastern candidates when I run for President around 2040. :)