*** First and Second Tier VP Candidate Poll ***

[FlyingSquirrel]

Poll question: *** First and Second Tier VP Candidate Poll ***

For explanation of my ranking as first/second-tier candidates:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6155298

Vote for Third and Fourth Tier candidates here

[cyclezealot]

1. W. Clark.

Military, A southerner , a white male , friends with the Clinton's. How better to heal the party and win the election.

[Sensitivity]

24. Whoever shuts down National Security as a McCain advantage -- Clark, Webb, Zinni or Hagel etc

[cboy4]

2. A.B.R.

Anyone But Richardson

[FlyingSquirrel]

3. Is Richardson basically the one all the most vocal Hillary supporters now hate?

Kinda sounding like that. If that's the case, perhaps Clark WOULD be the best choice. Which would you rather see if given the choice between the other top two - Clark or Webb?

[cboy4]

4. I think I'd choose Webb.....I think he could help influence the

Republics when need be.

However, I know he said he doesn't want the VP job.

Clark wouldn't be bad, however.

[cloudythescribbler]

13. oddly, neither of those would seem particularly (+) on gay rights -- I agree w/goal of realpolitik,

I just don't think that trying to pick a middle-of-the-roader is ideal this year.

My own electoral realpolitik logic for THIS election year is that Obama should pick:

(1) a woman without high negatives, baggage or the tendency to galvanize Republicans etc not otherwise (ideologically eg) motivated to go to the polls and vote for the opponent

(2) someone who NEVER supported the Iraq War Resolution (IWR) back when.

It is true that these are both ideological preferences, but the two often go together rather than pulling in opposite directions. Trying to blur the distinctions b/t the parties and candidates may seem to be the best approach, but Democrats lose SOME votes because of the blurring as well as gaining.

Instead, I look for a ticket that people will like as a gestalt, that the press won't find contradictions and hypocrisy to point out, (eg on IWR), that will bring the otherwise disappointed (women looking for a woman to be in the White House -- and it IS about time, as women have had the vote in the US for almost 90 years) into the fold without the risks and downside of Hillary Clinton on the ticket (she no doubt can be rewarded in other ways, many of them arguably better than being VP).

As for specific VPs, Stabenow could strongly appeal to those Democratic-leaning voters with whom Obama is said to be less popular, especially in the midWest (she's a MI sen) and possibly blow the GOP out of the water

My own preference (since being strong on foreign policy WILL be important, in the dynamic of media wagging tongues) is CA Sen Barbara Boxer, though I can see people will feel there's a lack of the diversity of appeal that Stabenow would bring. Boxer in my view would REALLY help in FL -- though it is arguable that the best candidate for FL (w/experience both in foreign policy and as a gov, is Graham. Another male candidate w/similar credentials is Richardson, who could also broaden appeal of ticket).

[cboy4]

16. I was asked about two specfic candidates .. I didn't say

they would even be in my top five of choices.

[hokies4ever]

5. V.P. picking analysis

It appears that there are 3 main criteria for choosing a V.P., in terms of what is the most important thing they bring to the ticket. These 3 main philosophies seem to be:

1. Electability. Seems to be the favorite argument in the MSM now. Basically, it's who can best help the presidential nominee win the election. People who prefer this argument seem to favor swing-state politicians as well as former campaign rivals. This argument is often criticized because it normally places too much importance on a single state and is counterintuitive to the long-held belief that people vote for the top of the ticket, not the bottom of the ticket.

2. Prepared to be President on Day 1. I know that this argument was given as the #1 criteria by Bill Clinton back when he was running for President. Basically, it says that the most important criteria is that the V.P. will be ready to take over at any time if the President can't continue the job. It's hard to discern who this argument favors. I believe it tilts slightly in the direction of foreign policy / military experts, since they are assumed to be better crisis managers, since war is inherently assumed to be a bigger crisis than economic troubles, even if that shouldn't be the case. That is to say, it's much easier to be scared about war than the economy. That's why the Republicans always try to portray Dems as weak on national security to scare up votes.

3. Ability to help the President govern. I know that Pelosi has gone on the record with this philosophy as the one being most important. This is my philosophy as well. Obama has hinted that this is his philosophy as well. Basically, it's who the presidential nominee believes would help him to do the best job. This philosophy tends to favor people who have a good rapport with the nominee, people who share his political message, people who would be perceived as undeniably loyal to the nominee, and people whose strengths compliment the weaknesses the candidate believes he needs help with to govern. People deferring to this philosophy will often be willing to go along with whoever the nominee wants as a V.P. and may not have too strong of a preference themselves, since the candidate himself will best know how to choose based on these criteria

I think that people's preference for the V.P. spot will depend on which of these philosophies they prefer, or whether they prefer varying levels of combinations of these philosophies. People supporting Hillary, for example, will heavily cite philosophy #1 and to a lesser extent philosophy #2, but will probably ignore philosophy #3. People supporting Sebelius, for another example, will heavily cite philosophy #3 and to a lesser extent philosophy #2, and hope that the polls at the time of selecting a V.P. won't do too much damage with respect to philosophy #1.

Any thoughts/comments? :patriot:

[FlyingSquirrel]

7. If ability to help govern is Obama's main philosophy,

I'd expect him to be choosing a governor!

:crazy:

[hokies4ever]

10. I favor Sebelius

and it's because she seems to fit philosophy #3 the best and is good enough with philosophy #2.

[cloudythescribbler]

14. I think Barbara Boxer meets those criteria well, as do several others ...

(1) On electability, one argument is that Obama almost MUST pick a woman. Otherwise there will be a lot of disappointed folk out there who were hoping for a woman in the White House (after almost 90 years of women voting, it's about time ...). This election year, having a woman VP is BOTH a matter of principle (not just a woman on a ticket, but on an at least PROBABLY winning ticket, for the first time), AND of electoral realpolitik. It should be remembered that having people vote, reluctantly, is not as valuable as having their enthusiastic support, eg convincing friends and neighbors. And there are no doubt SOME who would either stay home or cast their vote elsewhere this year if the VP is NOT a woman.

I frankly don't consider Hillary very strong on ANY of the three counts, ESPECIALLY #1 as well as 3, as she could even COST the ticket a few per cent rather than boosting the ticket a few percent. Even if she boosts the ticket on balance, there are other candidates who I feel would boost it more.

CA Sen Barbara Boxer, on the other hand, has none of Hillary Clinton's high negatives w/those OTHER than hardcore RWers, and no serious baggage AFAIK; Boxer also has years of experience (helpful w/2 & 3), much moreso than Hillary OR Sebelius, and has an especially strong foreign policy resume. Boxer is also strong on the Greenhouse (for a pol), and not only has low negatives but is EXTREMELY popular and anything but 'charisma challenged'.

Another criterion has to do with fundamental issues. I do NOT want a VP who, eg, isn't pro-choice, which would rule out at least a few candidates. In this election, ESPECIALLY MORESO as Obama has emphasized the point, a VP pick who NEVER supported the Iraq War Resolution back when makes sense. Boxer and MI Sen Stabenow (another possibly appeal-broadening candidate, one that might make the repugs crap in their proverbial pants) both voted no on IWR, and Sebelius never supported it. I don't know where Napolitano was on the IWR issue back when and would be interested if someone can limn that point.

Boxer in particular would help with certain demographics (eg suburban women) who may be swing voters or might otherwise not vote. I think in particular that Boxer would significantly boost Obama in FL, where he is running well behind McCain, and much weaker than Hillary in head-to-head matchups. Graham of course would be a SUPER boost in FL, and has experience as both Gov and in foreign policy (and voted no on IWR). Richardson also could broaden the base of support for Obama, and has been both Gov and has a long foreign policy resume (the latter important on ALL THREE counts); of the candidates Obama ran against, Richardson is the strongest in my arrogant opinion. I do NOT want to see another DLC, 'centrist' Democrat or even DINO like Wes Clark or others being pushed hard (Strickland).

So, if we have a woman who never supported IWR to avoid getting hounded on the latter (and even the former, some) by the press, and want to have a united and enthusiastic party catalyzed by these two factors, Obama should be able to win this election, as long as he is as strong in the debates against McCain (and McCain as weak, which is unlikely) as the Kerry/Bush matchups. Obama has shown himself very POLITICALLY well-suited to the debate format in the debates since October, which I have watched. I think Kerry did VERY well in the debates, LOOKED very presidential, and beat Bush in ALL THREE, including in popular reactions. If Obama can match that performance, we can at least not have a president devoted to WINNING in Iraq, and FINALLY have a Democrat, a REAL Democrat, in the White House.

[hokies4ever]

15. Couple of points

Many Hillary supporters seem to suggest that choosing another woman is a slap in the face to Hillary. Obviously this makes little sense. Is Hillary the only woman qualified for the V.P. position? There was another thread on GD:P which had a link to Republican vs. Democrat polls with various V.P. selections. Edwards was by far and away polling the best, whereas Sebelius was not. The polling didn't include Hillary as a V.P. choice.

I do think that Hillary's best philosophy argument is #1. Essentially that her supporters will defect to McCain if she is not on the ticket. Obviously her worst philosophy is #3. I think I heard a pundit joke that Obama offering the V.P. slot to Hillary is like a spouse writing an alimony check. :rofl:

Boxer is an interesting choice. However, she is hardly ever mentioned. I wonder if there are any reasons why. I think that she is a staunch supporter of Hillary. Choosing a woman who is close to Hillary may be awkward to say the least.

I wouldn't recommend choosing a Dem V.P. based on FL. Crist is a popular governor so McCain could just one-up us with his selection very easily.

Also, it might be difficult to choose Boxer. Does she have any executive experience? I'm under the impression that both McCain and Obama need to take a hard look at executive experience, preferably a governor.

[FlyingSquirrel]

17. Boxer is mentioned pretty often, actually

There's a reason she's #4 (first of the second tier)

Barbara Boxer - 297 votes - 24.5% average - 2.9 ranking - 14 polls

[cloudythescribbler]

25. Boxer is not mentioned much b/c the buzz is heavily focused on Obama looking RIGHTward ...

some even say flat out that she skews the ticket too far left, but she's really in sync w/Obama on a lot ...

[Douglas Carpenter]

6. I thought it was interesting to check how the financial prediction markets are speculating on this

The figures below are from Rasmussen Markets:

http://markets.rasmussenreports.com/aav2/trading/tradingHTML.jsp?selConID=261450#

Which are almost the same as the figures from Intrade Prediction Markets:

http://www.intrade.com/

Unfortantely it is not possible to link directly to the figures. You have to first go to the site then maneuver to find the figures



The Vice Presidential market trading on Rasmussen Markets

BAYH 3.1% to 3.2%

CLARK 5.1% TO 5.5%

RICHARDSON 6.9% to 7.9%

GORE 5.3% to 5.4%

WEBB 20.2% to 20.8%

STRICKLAND 3.4% to 3.7%

CLINTON 16.7% to 17.2%

EDWARDS 6.7% to 6.8%

BIDEN 4.4% to 4.9%

NUN 5.1% to 5.7%

DASCHLE 1.6% to 2.4%

DODD 1.2% to 1.5%

KERRY 0.5% to 0.9%

WARNER 6.5% to 7.8%

[FlyingSquirrel]

8. Wow, Clark and Richardson are barely there compared to Webb & Clinton

And no Boxer or Sebelius, two other favorites here on DU.

I have to say, after that reponse Webb gave to the SOTU address I really would love to see him on the ticket. And being from Virginia seems to be a good thing this year.

[redstate_democrat]

9. I've come to the conclusion that Webb is the strongest VP choice.

I say this because he can bring a state. He has foreign policy/military credentials. He is a white man from the "white working class" background. He is patriotic. He knows how to talk.

My next choice would be a governor. Sebelius or Richardson would do.

For a unity ticket, if necessary, I would choose Clark.

[hokies4ever]

11. "I've got 99 problems and a b**** ain't one"

An Obama/Webb ticket might as well make this Jay-Z song their campaign theme song. :rofl: Webb has written a book condemning female soldiers in the military. That won't go over with many women, especially ones mad at Obama already from this primary season.

[Bensthename]

21. Really?

That is all sad.

With alot of dem women on the edge right now, you are right.

[FlyingSquirrel]

22. Oooh. That doesn't sound good.

Mkay, Webb may have to take a back seat to Clark then in the top 3. (Richardson is a big favorite but I personally have not really warmed up to him. Just endorsing Obama at a good time is not a good enough reason. I know he has governing experience.. know he could help with the Hispanic vote.. know he's good for foreign policy. Just his personality and speaking style doesn't really do it for me. I'd rather see Edwards really, but I know he doesn't bring what this ticket needs the most.

[Douglas Carpenter]

12. Yes he does sound very strong.

I understand though that some people are concerned about some personal matters. He has been married three times. Of course that does not bother me. But it is the sort of thing that some people would look at as a minus that could draw enemy fire. Also he has been criticized for some extremely graphic fictional writing; to put it politely. Again not that I would hold that against him. But it is the sort of thing that some people would be concerned about the issue being raised even though that involves writing he did quite a long time ago. It did cause a flap during his Senatorial campaign.

From The Times - October 28, 2006

Porn accusations turn up heat: Republican dredges up his opponent's fictional scenes of incest as campaign gets even more vicious

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article616016.ece

[Bucky]

18. I look at a list like this and I'm embarrassed for my party.

That's right, we have an embarrassment of riches. Good god, how can Obama only pick one of them?

[FlyingSquirrel]

19. :-)

[Bensthename]

20. I feel bad for Obama to have to pick from such a list

of such wonderful talented people.. It will be a tough pick for him. Thats for sure.

[Colobo]

23. Webb.

[FlyingSquirrel]

26. .

[FlyingSquirrel]

27. ..