VP Selections

#1
Sin City Vol

Sin City Vol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
8,919
Likes
10,463
#1
Who do you guys want Trump to select for VP? I only ask about trump because the majority of people here hate Hillary. I just read a few minutes ago that Christie is getting vetted right now, should be interesting
 
#4
#4
Trump seems content to alienate any picks that would actually be useful (Martinez, Haley, Kasich, Rubio) and go for people like Christie or Sessions who have very little tactical value. It's truly stunning.

HRC will probably pick Pocahontas or Tim Kaine.
 
#6
#6
Nick Card, from Jacksonville Oregon. Ran for State office.

Trump-Card 2016, sounds cool.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#8
#8
UTCVol said:
Trump seems content to alienate any picks that would actually be useful (Martinez, Haley, Kasich, Rubio) and go for people like Christie or Sessions who have very little tactical value. It's truly stunning.

HRC will probably pick Pocahontas or Tim Kaine.
Click to expand...

History shows that VP pick have had very little impact on the vote.
 
#11
#11
Im not certain if I can manage to pull the lever for Trump. Christie on the same ticket will ensure it will never happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#18
#18
GAVol said:
Al Gore and Dan Quayle prove that theory wrong.
Click to expand...

I sort of agree on Quayle. He was a loveable moron who stood out against the drab, inhuman and horrendous Dukakis campaign. Palin certainly didn't possess any redeeming qualities along those lines. Quayle's kind of like Biden - good experience but very gaffe-prone. Innocent gaffes are more excusable in the eyes of the public.

Gore's a doofus, but that ticket was very strategically sound and cleaned up in the South. Unlike the others, his enduring legacy isn't his stupidity, but his utter mediocrity.
 
Last edited:
#19
#19
UTCVol said:
I sort of agree on Quayle. He was a loveable moron who stood out against the drab, inhuman and horrendous Dukakis campaign. Palin certainly didn't possess any redeeming qualities along those lines.

Gore's a doofus, but that ticket was very strategically sound and cleaned up in the South. Unlike the others, his enduring legacy isn't his stupidity, but his utter mediocrity.
Click to expand...

Clinton carried the south. Gore being a doofus is the reason he couldn't carry his "home" state when he was out from under Bill.
 
#20
#20
BeecherVol said:
Clinton carried the south. Gore being a doofus is the reason he couldn't carry his "home" state when he was out from under Bill.
Click to expand...

My point is that Gore did nothing to hurt the Clinton ticket. He probably helped slightly with the Southern vote (I say this even though it's hard to tell) and his DC experience had universal appeal to assuage worries about a small-time AR governor. He's milquetoast, but that's preferable to most people than a buffoon.

He sucked as the leading man because he's an exceptionally boring person. Certainly not charismatic enough to account for the vast ideological differences between Southerners and himself.
 
#21
#21
UTCVol said:
My point is that Gore did nothing to hurt the Clinton ticket. He probably helped slightly with the Southern vote (I say this even though it's hard to tell) and his DC experience had universal appeal to assuage worries about a small-time AR governor. He's milquetoast, but that's preferable to most people than a buffoon.

He sucked as the leading man because he's an exceptionally boring person. Certainly not charismatic enough to account for the vast ideological differences between Southerners and himself.
Click to expand...

Id agree with most of that. I think he was irrelevant to Clintons campaign success.

Not sure that it is a healthy approach but I don't think the general voter pays attention or even cares enough about the VP to matter. Your last paragraph helps show that. It only mattered when he was the face of the ticket.
 
#22
#22
BeecherVol said:
Id agree with most of that. I think he was irrelevant to Clintons campaign success.

Not sure that it is a healthy approach but I don't think the general voter pays attention or even cares enough about the VP to matter. Your last paragraph helps show that. It only mattered when he was the face of the ticket.
Click to expand...

It's sort of hard to quantify the effect that a VP has just because there's no way to tell how the other scenario played out. If I had to guess, Clinton probably would have pulled TN without Gore, but by a razor-thin margin. The data from southern states in that election is interesting, as there isn't any sort of uniformity:

AR: Clinton +18
LA: Clinton +5
TN: Clinton +5
KY: Clinton +3
GA: Clinton +1
NC: Bush +1
FL: Bush +2
AL: Bush +7
SC: Bush +8
MS: Bush +9

The effect of the VP depends on situation. John Edwards, who IMO is much less coherent on policy than Gore and just as weird, did absolutely nothing to help in NC in 2004, as the margin was virtually the same as it was in 2000. Palin and Ryan helped marginally in their home states, but those aren't really swing states anyway. That's why I maintain Kasich or Rubio as a good pick for Trump, although neither appears to be interested.

HW and LBJ were probably the best VP picks since 1950.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top