Would the choice of VP affect your vote?

CocheseUGA

CocheseUGA

CAGiversary!
Feedback
33 (100%)
After looking at the canidates, I hate to admit my vote is leaning towards Obama. I usually vote Republican, but I can't stand Romney, McCain is going downhill for me, and the one guy I seem to like best, Huckabee, doesn't seem to have much of a shot. Obama seems to have the most qualities I like.

But, if Edwards ends up being the VP canidate, I'd most likely vote for the Republican. That's about the only person I would seriously vote against in a ticket.
 
Meh, I'd take a VP I don't like over a President I don't like. It doesn't make sense to me to say "I don't want the other guys to be president, but if the guy I want to be president gets a VP I don't like, I'll vote for one of those other guys."

It seems right now like the Democratic ticket will either be Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama, but is Edwards really so terrible that you'd vote for somebody else you don't like if he's the VP?
 
Short answer: yes. None of the electable Republicans are worse than Edwards, IMO. Giuliani has some stuff to answer for, but otherwise...
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']Short answer: yes. None of the electable Republicans are worse than Edwards, IMO. Giuliani has some stuff to answer for, but otherwise...[/quote]
Worse as a VP though? What power does the VP have that affects it that much?
 
If Guilliani or Hillary are VP's then damn... other then that IDGAF.

Another Cheney beats the hell out of Guilliani or Hillary
 
It is possible that the candidate won't take any of the others for their VP and instead take someone new.

In Obama's case, I can fully see why he wouldn't take Clinton after the campaign she's run. She'd be too much of a turn off for Obama supporters. As for Edwards....meh :)

Knowing Obama, maybe he'll shock the US with a Republican VP. You know, follow that whole "crossing the isle to work together" ideal.

~HotShotX
 
Obama needs to pick up a VP that fills in the perceived gap he has in experience. Picking up someone like Joe Biden or Bill Richardson who have tons of experience either in foreign policy or just in general would be a smart move.

For Clinton, she needs to pick someone who has cross-party appeal and is unoffensive in any way. She'll pick someone who's ridiculously moderate from a red state, like Evan Bayh.
 
As long as Huckabee and Clinton don't win, I will be happy.

If the democratic candidate picks Richardson for VP, I would be happy. Richardson was my favorite candidate and I think he would do a good job as VP. Obama should pick Oprah if he wins.
 
[quote name='ananag112']Obama should pick Oprah if he wins.[/quote]

Hell no! I like having balls and the last thing i want is Oprahism to crush everyones in one fell swoop.
 
NO, an undesirable VP would not affect my vote.

I'm basically going to vote for which ever Dem wins the ticket. I don't get why anybody would vote republican.

Domestically we're pretty much doing worse now than we ever have been (besides maybe the great depression but give it time, we may get there). Healthcare, education, social security, nat'l debt, all suck.

Internationally we ARE doing worse now than we ever have been. We are in an unwinnable War for Pete's sake.

Why would anybody want another 4-8 years of this awful shit?
 
[quote name='pittpizza']NO, an undesirable VP would not affect my vote.

I'm basically going to vote for which ever Dem wins the ticket. I don't get why anybody would vote republican.

Domestically we're pretty much doing worse now than we ever have been (besides maybe the great depression but give it time, we may get there). Healthcare, education, social security, nat'l debt, all suck.

Internationally we ARE doing worse now than we ever have been. We are in an unwinnable War for Pete's sake.

Why would anybody want another 4-8 years of this awful shit?[/QUOTE]

Because there are Republicans who aren't interested in being Bush Jr, or extending the war.

If there was a canidate out there who I agreed with on every single issue except the war, I'd vote for them. I've not found a comparison better than selectsmart.org. If anyone has a better one, speak up. Obama seems to line up with almost all of my interests. I don't feel great about what Clinton is saying about 'freezing foreclosures,' and someone who's prime concern is to 'make the corporations pay' truly doesn't grasp the ramifications of what they propose.

I'd actually feel better if Edwards were VP instead of AG, now that I think about it.
 
What don't you like about Edwards? Just curious - in this primary season, it seems as if most candidates have plenty of controversy going around, with the exception of Edwards.
 
[quote name='Magehart']Hell no! I like having balls and the last thing i want is Oprahism to crush everyones in one fell swoop.[/QUOTE]

My comment was mostly a joke, but there is no way Obama would lose if he had Oprah as his VP. Every woman in the country would vote for him.
 
I think Obama should pick Stephen Colbert as his vice president, if he gets the nomination.
Joking aside, Edwards, or Al Gore would be a good candidate for VP.
 
Obama and Richardson are my dream team.
I don't think there's any VP that would really deter me unless they were a young clone of Cheney.
 
[quote name='ananag112']My comment was mostly a joke, but there is no way Obama would lose if he had Oprah as his VP. Every woman in the country would vote for him.[/quote]

Even Hillary?
 
I'd like to see an Obama/Edwards ticket. Lets face it, most presidential canidates aren't poor or even middle class. Just because Edwards is rich doesn't mean he's incapable of caring about the middle class. If that were the case then we'd be screwed no matter who we voted for. Which granted, it does seem that way some times.
 
[quote name='t0llenz']Obama needs to pick up a VP that fills in the perceived gap he has in experience. Picking up someone like Joe Biden or Bill Richardson who have tons of experience either in foreign policy or just in general would be a smart move.

For Clinton, she needs to pick someone who has cross-party appeal and is unoffensive in any way. She'll pick someone who's ridiculously moderate from a red state, like Evan Bayh.[/QUOTE]

Astute analysis. Richardson would fit the bill nicely for Obama, with a lot of foreign policy experience to assuage voter fears about his inexperience in that arena as well as his appeal to the Latino vote, not to mention geographic appeal that a Northeastern liberal can't offer. The only problem is during his campaign he continued inserting his foot into his mouth at an alarming rate.

With Hillary, Evan Bayh is a name often mentioned. Maybe she could coax John Breaux out of political retirement, or go young/Southern and try to make up for her racial tactics in the primary with a Harold Ford even.
 
Yea, both Richardson and Biden tend to both have a bad case of foot-in-mouth disease. Solid candidates with some great experience, but they've always needed a bit more polish to prevent them from shooting off with something that hurts their candidacy.
 
Obama/Clinton (or Clinton/Obama if you're savvy) would have been an ideal ticket, but the shit-storm they've had for each other recently would make a ticket hard to sell as sincere, you know? (Aside from my belief that, although I like her policy suggestions, I fully agree that Clinton is power hungry enough that she wouldn't settle for VP).
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Obama/Clinton (or Clinton/Obama if you're savvy) would have been an ideal ticket, but the shit-storm they've had for each other recently would make a ticket hard to sell as sincere, you know? (Aside from my belief that, although I like her policy suggestions, I fully agree that Clinton is power hungry enough that she wouldn't settle for VP).[/QUOTE]Exactamundo. They couldn't be each other's number two. Although, if the primary continues the path it's taking with both of them pretty much splitting the electorate evenly, John Edwards could become kingmaker at the convention...and potentially the VP choice no matter what else they may genuinely need to fill in their perceived gaps.
 
I think that if either Clinton or Obama grouped up with Edwards as their VP then they could win. There is definitely a chance we may see a brokered convention and I think this would really help the Dems win the WH.

OTOH, McCain really scares me because he does seem electable. He is a pretty moderate dude and even I (a looney left) like the guy. A man who can keep his daddy's gold watch stuffed up his ass for 8 years in a POW camp deserves some respect. (Warning: I may have mixed a little Pulp Fiction in with fact on that last sentence).

It's really exciting isn't it? It's such a politically charged time. You can bet your ass there is going to be one and only one issue on everyone's mind by the time the conventions roll around: IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID!!!

Traditionally, Reps have been thought of as better for the economy but lately I don't know, it sure as shit hasn't been doing too well lately, and it did do great under Clinton. The informed US populace can't be happy with Rep fiscal irresponsibility (basically hemorraging money the last 6 years) lately so perhaps economic concerns will actually benefit D's this year. Whadayathink?
 
Edwards wouldn't do anything for the experience gap...but, then again, he could pull into the same type of mentality that got Clinton/Gore elected. Instead of filling in the gaps...he plays up the positive.

Clinton/Gore were both southern moderates who appealed across party lines in 1992 to moderates and even Republican-leaning voters in the south. Instead of being cut from different cloth, they emphasized the same cloth and how we needed that for America. Obama/Edwards would be the same way. Obama and Edwards both are relatively inexperienced, but both have hope for America, a solidly populist message, and are not jaded by the establishment (ala Clinton, etc as to which they both point). They'd become the ticket of change and, if they campaigned well enough, could prove to be effective.
 
I'm glad you see things that way (you're somewhat conservative, no?). I have a deeply-embedded fear that, while Obama is the "hope" candidate, Edwards will be hung out to dry by conservatives for being a "class war" candidate (premised on how spot-the-hell-on, IMO, "two Americas" framework is), and for being a $400 haircut elitist, as our resident Canadian reminded us earlier.

The "class war" candidate can easily be reframed into a "socialist/FDR/handouts and welfare" candidate, and they're soon done for - even when their populist message applies to the very people who are afraid he would redistribute their (meager) wealth.
 
I didn't say I'd vote for them, just said they'd be effective candidates and how well their campaign could work ;)

I think a campaign of hope running against either of the two major GOP frontrunners, McCain or Romney, could prove effective. Giuliani and Huckabee are lost causes and my ideal candidate, Fred Thompson, has already dropped out...as he never really wanted it badly enough...which was also part of his draw, to me.

If the Republicans want to have a chance at taking the White House, they need to hope Hillary Clinton gets the nomination. They've pegged their hopes on her because she's the divisive one, Obama is not. Edwards is not, when you look at state-by-state polling. Then, against Clinton, they need John McCain coupled with someone younger. Someone like Pawlenty or Huckabee (shudder) would help round out a ticket like that. McCain would then have to play up his foreign policy credentials to be a wartime President, shifting the debate over to the area where talking about hope doesn't always work. If he can't shift the debate over there, and it stays on domestic issues...he's toast. McCain's name makes a certain segment of the conservative population cringe because of McCain-Feingold and the failed attempt at compromise on immigration. These people will just not vote or vote Constitution Party/Libertarian if Ron Paul's over there. If it stays on domestic issues, a hope for America ticket can win, even against the moderate friendly John McCain.

I also think the "class war" candidate, if not at the top of the ticket, won't get the criticism that would turn him into the "socialist candidate." Obama never has been the class war candidate, he's always been the "outsider looking in" candidate. This is his advantage and he can play that up really well if, during the general, he can come up with some innovative ideas for domestic problems. An Obama/Edwards ticket would be a tough one to beat, especially considering candidacies of Obama and McCain will probably cause Bloomberg to not jump into the Presidential fray, thus making the only potential third party force one that leeches from Republicans (ala a Libertarian candidacy of Ron Paul or Constitution candidacy of Alan Keyes neither of which are unlikely).
 
[quote name='PyroGamer']Edwards has "Vice President" written all over him.[/QUOTE]

Good call, since he no longer has "president" written on him.
 
[quote name='Mike23']$400 Haircuts and working for the middle class aren't exactly compatible. ;) [/QUOTE]

Yeah, anyone who actually believes this is a legitimate argument shouldn't be allowed to vote. How much someone spends on haircuts has absolutely no connection to their views concerning the middle class.

fucking mouth-breather.
 
[quote name='evanft']Yeah, anyone who actually believes this is a legitimate argument shouldn't be allowed to vote. How much someone spends on haircuts has absolutely no connection to their views concerning the middle class.

fucking mouth-breather.[/QUOTE]

Coincidentally, I'm not allowed to vote. ;)

However, I'm just pointing out the difference between saying something and doing something. Edwards can claim to fight for the middle class or ending poverty all he wants, but these types of elitist habits, if properly promoted by the media, automatically discredit his message for a lot of the population.

A lot of his measures aimed at ending poverty do, as myke said, paint him in an FDR class-war candidate, so he'd never be able to garner the type of broad support for a presidential campaign.

I could go on, but the entire argument is moot - he's not going to be the democratic candidate, and I'd put long odds on his VP chances.
 
[quote name='evanft']Yeah, anyone who actually believes this is a legitimate argument shouldn't be allowed to vote. How much someone spends on haircuts has absolutely no connection to their views concerning the middle class.

fucking mouth-breather.[/quote]

What about someone who cares about candidate's actions as well as their words? What about someone who thinks that presidential hopefuls should practice what they preach, and act as if they beleive in the message they're sending? Should people who care about these things be allowed to vote?

I'm not saying Edwards did or did not do these things, I'm just trying to peg down who exactly you feel should enjoy the right (or is it privilege?) to vote.
 
[quote name='evanft']Yeah, anyone who actually believes this is a legitimate argument shouldn't be allowed to vote. How much someone spends on haircuts has absolutely no connection to their views concerning the middle class.

fucking mouth-breather.[/QUOTE]

The only mouth-breathers are the ones who completely look past his "Look at what I say, not what I do" campaign approach. He labelled himself as the canidate for the poor, when he was the only one getting rich off of his time in court. The guy with the wife who doesn't like the 'undesirable' people across the street, because they own some guns. The guy who's almost all appearance and no substance.

He's the guy you imagine giving a huge speech about how everyone is equal, and how there should be healthcare for all, and everyone has a chance. Then, he goes backstage and asks if the basketball court at his house is resurfaced yet, and fires the gardener for not using filtered water on the houseplants.

I get asked what I don't like about the guy, I don't trust him. I listen to his speeches and appearances, and look at the people he surrounds himself with. I am constantly thinking two things: 1)what's in this for him, and 2)I bet he wouldn't talk to these people if he wasn't benefiting in some way.

It's true I feel this way about politicians in general, but this guy seems to take it far and above what I've seen before. Strangely enough, I identify with his 'values' as much as any other canidate (McCain, Obama, Clinton and Edwards were all above 60% in a comparison I took), but his demeanor, his delivery and his personality all scream fake to me. He may actually be an impressive man to know and be friends with, but that's not what he shows to me in public appearances.

He's the Plastic Fantastic to me, and always will be.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']and for being a $400 haircut elitist, as our resident Canadian reminded us earlier.
[/quote]Whoever this man of which you speak is, he must die.

There can only be one.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']The only mouth-breathers are the ones who completely look past his "Look at what I say, not what I do" campaign approach. He labelled himself as the canidate for the poor, when he was the only one getting rich off of his time in court. The guy with the wife who doesn't like the 'undesirable' people across the street, because they own some guns. [/QUOTE]

Oh, the actions of his wife when she overreacted to some neighbor's actions are completely pertinent to Senator Edwards' views. I get it.

[quote name='CocheseUGA']The guy who's almost all appearance and no substance.[/QUOTE]

That's Barack Obama, sweetcheeks. In case you haven't noticed, he's basically the Democratic version of Mitt Romney, except he actually somehow has less substance.

[quote name='CocheseUGA']He's the guy you imagine giving a huge speech about how everyone is equal, and how there should be healthcare for all, and everyone has a chance. Then, he goes backstage and asks if the basketball court at his house is resurfaced yet, and fires the gardener for not using filtered water on the houseplants.[/QUOTE]

John Edwards is an incredibly wealthy man. Everyone knows this. He wasn't always wealthy, however, and had to work hard to get where he is today. Now, how does this somehow preclude him from speaking about issues that effect middle class America?

I'm not really seeing any substantive reasoning here.
 
[quote name='evanft']

I'm not really seeing any substantive reasoning here.[/QUOTE]

That's what happens when you read your posts.

Edwards wasn't born rich: No, you don't say? Next, you'll tell me he's actually from South Carolina.

Maybe you should do a little background research, the Edwards's share almost all of their views on everything.

As far as I can tell, the only thing I see Edwards having over Obama is four more years of experience in the US Senate, and an incessant want to punish corporations. Oh, and Edwards put his name on more bills than Andrew Jackson. I don't see any substance about Edwards at all.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Whoever this man of which you speak is, he must die.

There can only be one.[/QUOTE]

You two can bend the rules of the fuckin' universe and coexist in the same space at the same time you are the "only one."

My proof:

What's more Canadian than a moose?

So, to demonstrate:
singular: moose
plural: moose

SEE! THEY'RE THE SAME, YET DIFFERENT!

Y'all have different rules up north. And far more tolerable "conservatives." But that SVP tax can fuck right off.
 
I actually really liked Edwards and, though he never really seemed to have much of a shot at the White House, I identified with his message.

If I told you his message was fighting poverty and eliminating economic inequality, nobody would argue with me.

If I told you he struggles against the unhealthy influence large corporations and lobbyists exert on our government, nobody would argue with me.

What people seem to be focusing on however is his personal financial success. Because he is rich and gets peticures (sp?) he can't possibly mean what he says? I disagree. Does he practice what he preaches? No, but how could he? What is the guy supposed to do, give all his money away, move into the burbs and drive a 92 Corolla?

I'm biased though b/c (1) I'm liberal, (2) I too aspire to be a trial lawyer like Edwards and (3) he was a white male and while I personally am not racist or sexist (spare me your "Everyone is a little racist" remarks) I recognize that lots of people are, thereby hurting Clinton or Obama.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top