CNN..V.P ....Edwards & Clark

[surfermaw]

Edwards defeated Wesley Clark, a retired four-star general and
another 2004 Democratic presidential primary contender, 62 to
38 percent

[Liberal Veteran]

1. I think Clark would be the better choice.

Because we really can't afford to put another seat up for grabs in congress right now.

[KC21304]

8. I've always been for VP Clark. But your reason

is moot since Edwards is not running for re-election to the Senate.

[mndemocrat_29]

16. Edwards isn't running for the Senate

Erskine Bowles is (and is currently leading).

[Wickerman]

2. link here

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/veepstakes/misc/final.html

[Stockholm]

3. As I can´t vote I don´t care which one....

as long as the result is a regime change.

[MoonRiver]

28. I love your city!

My husband and I were there a few years ago. It's wonderful!

Welcome to DU Stockholm, home of the still free! :hi:

[Stockholm]

37. You are welcome back anytime :) n/t

[daa]

4. Which one delivers which key electoral votes? nt

[spooky3]

5. I think this is a dupe?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x529136

[xultar]

6. The USA doesn't deserve Clark as a President or VeeP...

U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!U WES A!!!

[progdonkey]

7. I'm going with Edwards

The first issue is whether Kerry should go with a balanced ticket or a complete onslaught of war-hero credentials. I think the former is the better way to go, and I therefore think Edwards is the far better choice for the ticket. He is extremely charming, a skilled campaigner, and is a southern boy through and through. These qualities would create a great balance with Kerry, who is quite lacking in those qualities.

Clark is still a bit unsure when talking to huge crowds, he's not a very skilled campaigner, but is southern AND has "general" before his name. I think he'd be a better choice for Defense Secretary or Dep. SECDEF. Kerry has already said he'd want McCain for his SECDEF; that could just be a political teasing of the media, but if he's serious, Clark can always be McCain's deputy. Imagine Kerry using that as part of his campaign: vote for me and I'll replace Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz with CAPT McCain- GEN Clark!

Regarding losing a Senate seat if Edwards becomes Veep: it's really not a big deal. We're currenlty in the minority in the Senate, so it's not like the Republicans will all of a sudden be able to do all of these things--they're already doing them. If Edwards can help Kerry win, it's far more important for him to be on the ticket. Also, with a Kerry win (especially if by a wide margin), the Republican majority in the Senate will not feel they have the free reign they have now: they will have to deal with a Democratic president (who was actually elected).

Furthermore, if Edwards is on the ticket, it's not like Clark can't campaign for Kerry. I think a good strategy is to publicly promise SECDEF or Dep. SECDEF to Clark, so he, in effect, is on the ticket as a member of the Kerry cabinet. That way, if there are voters who are apprehensive of both Kerry AND Edwards, but not of Clark, they can feel confident to vote for Kerry, knowing that Clark will be in the Cabinet.

[Darkamber]

9. Agree...but Sec. of State for Clark...

Clark has not been out of the military long enough to be Sec. of Defense.

Also, Edwards seat would be given up whether or not he was VP. There is another Democrat...Erskine Bowles, who is running for the NC Senate seat. Edwards is helping him and campaigning with him. Edwards is also campaigning to help other Democrats either hold onto or win key Senate races.

[Nashyra]

11. I will stick by Clark

How come everyone is so excited about this cnn contest when all the time we hear about how they are competing with Faux? I think it would be a Repuke dream come true for Edwards to be on the veep ticket. I am very skeptical about the tactics they will use on Edwards. Namely the healthcare issue and rising costs, many states are proposing caps and Edwards past experience as a malpractice attorney will be used to the hilt. One of my biggest reasons for supporting Clark is they can not attack his past credetials (I'm not saying he's perfect) without literally attacking themselves about the war in Iraq. This election in MHO will be on getting out of Iraq and not getting pulled back into another debacle. Eventually the voters will come to see the direct result between some sort of peace in the middle east and our economic security. Edwards does not have the global experience that Clark has. I think that Edwards would make a great AG, he would be someone that would be able to defend the constitution and the rights of the less fortunate in a very affable manner that would be recieved well by a large portion of the voters. He would have no problem getting confirmed.

[Doosh]

10. The people want Edwards for VP

that's been clear for a long time

[Tom Rinaldo]

12. The people wanted Dean for President

That was clear for a long time too.

[Doosh]

13. not when it came to a vote

[Sparkly]

14. I think that's the point. n/t

[Doosh]

17. and the point was proven in the primaries

edwards got far more votes than clark, and it's being proven with every single poll not done on DU. Edwards leads, Clark in single digits.

[AP]

18. The point is that the more you know about Edwards, the more you want him

to be on the ticket.

The more people learned about all the candidates, the less they wanted Dean on the ticket.

Only two candidates had an upward trajectory during the primaries, Kerry and Edwards.

And according to the informed voter study, Edwards's was steeper that Kerry's (but he ran out of time, money and luck).

[Auntie Bush]

15. Well I've wanted Clark for a long time too!

Who am I, chopped liver!? ;)

[Beaker]

54. what people?

The people I know all want Clark.

[Claire Beth]

19. I would be pleased with either of them! n/t

[robbedvoter]

20. One more accurate prediction by CNN! yeay!

[FrenchieCat]

21. CNN lies....

Getta out a here!

You mean they actually lie....and push candidates that wouldn't be the best candidates for offices????

Naw!

I thought they were the media we could trust?

You mean it's better not to trust mainstream corporate media about this kinda of thing?

[Doosh]

22. the people have spoken

in the primaries, and in polls all over America. CNN just reports the facts, the people want Edwards. Not Clark.

how many times does it have to be proven to you?

[BootinUp]

23. The people never voted for a VP candidate

and never will. This is Kerry's choice and a single poll is not going to decide it.

It would be unwise to pick a candidate merely on recognition anyways, thats why the top few on the list are being vetted very carefully.

[AP]

24. In 1960 Stevenson deferred VP selection to convention delegates...

and they narrowly chose Kefauver over Kennedy.

In fact, I think that the VP is still elected separately, but the convention always defers to the Presidential nominee's choice, right? (See XII Amendment, US Constitution. http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/constitution_amendments_11-27.html)

So, technically, in the same sense thay you electe the P-nom (by selecting delegates) those same delegates are voting for the VP-nom, and are really free to vote for whomever they chose. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Of course Kerry's delegates are going to vote for the person Kerry wants, but I think there's really nothing binding them, and it would be bad form for any Democrat not picked by the P-nom to put his or her name forward.

[BootinUp]

25. Thats a stretch delegates vs. CNN online poll

Come'on AP give me a break.

[AP]

26. I wasn't the one who said we 'never' elect the VP-In fact we do, the exact

same way that we elect the P-nom: by voting for the delegates who vote for the P-nom at the convention.

If we never elect the VP-nom, then we never elect the P-nom either because they od it the same way.

Did you know that Stevenson let the delegats chose the VP nom in '56?

That's not "never."

The answer, technically, is that we "always" elect the VP-nom. Realistically, the last time we did was '56. But how knows. If Edwards is the VP-nom this year, arguably, we elected him. He's certainly run for it in a way that is very similar to the way Kennedy ran for it in '56.

[BootinUp]

27. yippee yahoo

The way of choosing a VP for the ticket is that it is done by the candidate in consultation with insiders. If you want to beat me so badly with your technicality from '56 then enjoy it. lol.

[atre]

47. Actually, that's not true either

The VP nomination must be confirmed by the delegates at the convention. If Kerry tagged someone the delegates did not want, the delegates could refuse to the selection and instead install some other choice. The fact that the delegates generally defer to the candidate's selection does not alter or diminish the fact that the VP choice is up to the delegates.

That's not a "technicality" (which, I had not noticed before, must be a frequently misused word).

Those are the rules of the game.

[AP]

48. I didn't use the word "technicality". I said "tecnhically."

I was contrasting what happens according to the rules versus what happens in practice.

I'm not sure I misused the word.

I definitely didn't mean it in the sense that it's an aberration, or illegitimate, or that it was something distant from reality.

It's the way it is. It's the theory and the rule. In practice, the delegates defer to the P-nominee. But the fact is, we elect the VP separately every time.

[BootinUp]

51. I got it the first time

Some people seem to be having a problem understanding my point though. :eyes:

For you trivia experts, when was the last time the delegates overroad the Presidential candidates choice?

[AP]

52. It's unlikely that a nominee would make a choice knowing that there

was a chance it would be ignored by the delegates. That would probably be the kiss of death for the entire campaign.

So, maybe in '56 they didn't even try to name one because they worried that the delegates would be divided (that they would try to get Kennedy on the ballot no matter what, since he was kind of charismatic and was popular, and added moderation to the ticket at a time when Democrats might have thought the coast was clear to go far left).

[BootinUp]

53. Of course

it would normally be worked out in advance as much as possible. But I still think this is a bit silly. It would take a pretty bad choice or preference by the candidate to unify the delegates against him. So in effect, as long as the candidate selects from the acceptable pool it will be his decision.

[robbedvoter]

30. CNN is "the people"? Ah, then the 2000 election was not stolen

and the Iraq war is justified....

[atre]

46. This is a poll; not an editorial

You're drawing a false analogy.

[robbedvoter]

29. I dunno. That's what the signs at Kerry's rally said - so maybe Kerry

is not so hot on CNN. I wonder why?

[PeaceProgProsp]

31. Kerry won this poll in 2000

I think I read that somewhere else here today.

[atre]

35. That's not surprising at all

The popular choice is rarely ever tabbed for the No. 2 spot. Which makes this Clarkie "foaming at the mouth"-fest all the more ridiculous.

[AP]

40. Cognitive dissonance.

Clark isn't the popular choice, so, by your logic, he has a chance.

[atre]

44. Huh?

I don't think you know who you're talking to, especially since you're stealing my spiel hunting down cognitive dissonance. I suggest you look it up, though, since it would not apply even if I were a Clark supporter (I'm not).

If you paid attention, you would see that Clark is not my top choice. I prefer Edwards, because I think he gives Southern Democrats the best chance of capturing many seats in various races, especially in this state (N.C.). I don't, however, harbor any delusions that Edwards will actually be pegged for the VP spot.

By the way, I actually do think Clark has a chance, not because he's not the popular choice (they're all on an equal footing roughly at this point), but because he is actually being vetted and considered. Edwards is as well. But I'm betting on a "boring" choice who is not a threat to upstage Kerry: Gep or Bayh.

[AP]

50. I was just poking a little fun at you.

I know it's your trademark phrase.

I also know Clark isn't your top choice, but you were arguing that the the popular choice doesn't get picked so Clark fans shouldn't be making the argument that he's the popular choice. You also said he wouldn't get picked. But your argument today, which you keep repeating, is that lack of popularity is the key factor. So if that is the sin qua non, Clark has a better chance than Edwards.

[in_cog_ni_to]

39. That's an interesting tidbit.

We see how far the poll took VP Kerry in 2000. :bounce: Encouraging.

[AP]

41. I've thought that had Kerry been on the top of the ticket in 2000...

...he'd be the president today.

And the poll certainly picked the next most popular Dem after Gore (and perhaps the one who would have run and won had the Dems not felt like they owned the top spot to the VP).

So maybe the poll just predicted the next Dem after Kerry to become president.

[citizen snips]

32. No the people choose Edwards over Clark.

:eyes:

[grannyfran]

33. Guess the Repukes

all voted for Edwards just like they did in the primaries.

[atre]

34. I have a hard time believing

that this many people are delusional. I think there are a handful of you guys with hundreds of DU accounts each.

Why is it so hard to believe that Clark is not the popular choice (and to accuse every pollster who has ever done a poll on this matter of being a liar)? Don't several of you guys blame his poor showing on an anti-Clark bias in the media? If you believe that, why is it necessary to accuse the pollsters of lying when you already have an excuse why the people would not prefer Clark? Geez, people, at least try to make it look like you thought this thing through.

And what does it matter whether Clark is or is not the popular choice? Being the popular choice would not help him become the VP nominee, since the candidate will be the only person whose choice matters? Like I said, at least try to make it look like you've got a triple-digit IQ.

[robbedvoter]

42. Right. Republicans NEVER vote in CNN polls. Or open Dem primaries

What was I thinking?

[AP]

43. And they NEVER EVER vote in general elections. Oh, wait. They do.

And if any Republican thinks they're sabotaging the Dems by voting for Edwards, they clearly aren't aware of this:

Furthermore, in a hypothetical November matchup against President Bush, Edwards fared significantly better than Kerry. While Kerry and Bush were tied at 47%, roughly a quarter of the participants favoring Bush in that matchup said they would be undecided or would prefer Edwards if the choice were instead between Bush and Edwards. In all, 48% said they would vote for Edwards and only 37% for Bush, if Edwards were the Democratic nominee. The contrast with the control group, which showed a similar but significantly weaker pattern, was highly significant statistically (26% of Bush supporters defected in the experimental group while only 12% defected in the control group). These results suggest a strong appeal of Edwards among Independents and Republicans.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/btp/polls.html

They're helping put on the ticket someone their brethren will LIKE.

So doesn't it make more sense to conclude that they're not freeping the selection the process. They're just being honest. And that they'll continue being honest with themselves when, in the general election they pull the lever for Kerry-Edwards.

By the way, why is Clark's appeal to moderates and Republicans presented as a great quality, but Edwards's even stronger appeal derided as sabotage?

[atre]

45. That's an interesting response

... since my post did not even deal with Edwards' cross-over appeal.

This is classic cognitive dissonance. You're running down every single conceivable (and even some inconceivable) excuses in order to maintain your core belief that Wes Clark is the Democratic savior. I swear, it borders on religious fanaticism with some of you guys.

The fact is every single poll shows that the people generally or Democrats alone favor John Edwards as the VP selection. I don't know why this is so hard for you guys to accept. And I don't know why it is so important to you guys, since the popular choice for VP rarely ever gets tabbed as a running mate.

[Jai4WKC08]

55. Think this through

First you assert that we're all the same people posting on different DU accounts. Then you marvel that we each have different reasons for discounting the various polls and primary results. What's wrong with that picture?

I would point out that Clark has NOT lost every VP poll, but nevermind. Fact is, Edwards does usually edge him out. I have my own theories as to why that is, but they've been rehashed a million times, so I won't bother here.

Like you, I think it's irrelevant. Kerry will choose whom he will choose. I have good reason to believe it will be Wes Clark. If it isn't, I'll be upset, but I'll deal with it and still support Kerry for president. Not with as much passion or hope as I would if Clark were on the ticket, but that's just the way I feel--can't be helped.

[shivaji]

36. Go Edwards!!!!!!!! RIP gen Clark

[Darth_Kitten]

38. DEAN!!!!!

:evilgrin:

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[DaveSZ]

49. Edwards would be fine with me

He brings a smile to your face every time he speaks.