Kerry/Edwards Candidates by Default?

[amicus]

Listening to the talking heads surmise the reasonings behind Kerry's choice of Edwards as a VP candidate, I had a thought tumble through the grey matter....

Did about an hour's search for some backup...found nothing, thus it must remain just, 'my' thought...

That thought was, in general, with the Democrat Convention, (that institution nominally existing to choose candidates) still some distance off, the Democratic Presidential Candidate, Kerry, has, all by himself, chosen his running mate.

Hmmm...

I went back through the primary election results, Edwards did come in second to Kerry in the number of delegates won.

It has been said many times before, but it remains relevant with each new election; what is the point of a political convention?

I was looking for a percentage of the voting poplulation that actually participated in the primary elections, but could find nothing on a national scale, only state by state results.

Extrapolating from that, it appears to me that a very tiny percentage of voters, nationwide, participated in selecting a candidate for the Presidency.

Kerry/Edwards along with Bush/Cheney will without a question be accepted as the 'tickets' from the two major parties.

But is it rather not by 'default' than by choice?

Just thoughts....

amicus

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Edwards was the logical choice for a candidate from the northeast. Just as LBJ was added to JFK's ticket to try and influence southerners. I suppose the Dems are hoping he will at least be able to deliver SC. Jusdeging from Gore's success in his bid I am not sure that's a given.

-Colly

 

[amicus]

The 'pundits' are saying that Edwards was in diapers when Kerry was in office...they are pointing out his lack of experience in Foreign Affairs and his lack of 'beltway experience'...from the point of view that if Kerry dies in office...could Edwards fill the bill.

Not my thoughts...from the news today...

amicus...

 

[Colleen Thomas]

The 'pundits' are saying that Edwards was in diapers when Kerry was in office...they are pointing out his lack of experience in Foreign Affairs and his lack of 'beltway experience'...from the point of view that if Kerry dies in office...could Edwards fill the bill.

Not my thoughts...from the news today...

amicus...

Anyone who bases thier vote on the off chance the VP may end up pres is already way out on a limb. If you are voting Kerry, you will vote kerry if his running mate is Al Franken, Al Sharpton or Al the cook in your local Deli. If you are voting against him, he could add your mom and you would probably still vote against him.

The country is so polarized that very little could happen to break the lagger heads. Edwards is the safe choice. Neither has much to offer that I can see as candidates. their primary appeal is that they aren't Bush/Cheny. Just as Bush/Cheny's primary appeal is that they aren't Kerry/Edwards.

For that small fraction of people who haven't already decided who they are voting for, I suspect Iraq, the economy and pet issues will make a lot more difference than who appears on campaing bumper stickers with Kerry.

-Colly

 

[amicus]

Perhaps, Colly, Perhaps...but in the dim dark past...was there not a VP candidate named Eagleton? Who was dropped? And what if Kerry had chosen Ralph Nader? My point is, that he could have chosen any of those you mentioned or anyone else, all by himself.

And that seems to me to be somewhat in opposition to the 'people' choosing who their candidates will be...

amicus...

 

[Wildcard Ky]

The 'pundits' are saying that Edwards was in diapers when Kerry was in office...they are pointing out his lack of experience in Foreign Affairs and his lack of 'beltway experience'...from the point of view that if Kerry dies in office...could Edwards fill the bill.

Not my thoughts...from the news today...

amicus...

Actually it was Kerry that first said that about Edwards when they were first campaigning against each other for the Dem nomination.

In my opinion, Edwards was added to try and win Florida. Edwards is from the south and is the most moderate of the 4 candidates in the race. Due to the very close result of the election in 2000, it's safe to say that Florida is split down the middle. Kerry is left, Bush/Cheney are right, Edwards could give the true moderates someone to gravitate to. Like I said, just my opinion.

 

[Mhari]

I haven't made a study of political conventions, so I may be way off base here...

But it seems to me that in most cases, the conventions are just window-dressing. Everyone knows who will be chosen long before the conventions themselves. They are, in effect, the sort of "rubber stamp" that CPSU "elections" in the Soviet Union were. (Ooh, bet I'll take some flak for that one!) The Electoral College is just as pointless.

I dunno why we have them still. But they must serve *some* purpose.

I so so so wish that John McCain had accepted the VP candidacy. *sigh* I think he's just what we need.

 

[stray_girl]

Listening to the talking heads surmise the reasonings behind Kerry's choice of Edwards as a VP candidate, I had a thought tumble through the grey matter....

Did about an hour's search for some backup...found nothing, thus it must remain just, 'my' thought...

That thought was, in general, with the Democrat Convention, (that institution nominally existing to choose candidates) still some distance off, the Democratic Presidential Candidate, Kerry, has, all by himself, chosen his running mate.

Hmmm...

I went back through the primary election results, Edwards did come in second to Kerry in the number of delegates won.

It has been said many times before, but it remains relevant with each new election; what is the point of a political convention?

The point these days is to rally the party and energize the people actually participating in the in the campaign. Furthermore, the convention is a mechanism to focus attention on the candidates. Usually, a the candidates can expect a 5%-10% bump in the polls following the convention.

I was looking for a percentage of the voting poplulation that actually participated in the primary elections, but could find nothing on a national scale, only state by state results.

Extrapolating from that, it appears to me that a very tiny percentage of voters, nationwide, participated in selecting a candidate for the Presidency.

Kerry/Edwards along with Bush/Cheney will without a question be accepted as the 'tickets' from the two major parties.

But is it rather not by 'default' than by choice?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'default'. However, you're right in that small percentage of voters participate in selecting the candidates. This is, of course, is not the candidates fault, but with us voters.

 

[amicus]

mhari....in my lifetime..and after the advent of television coverage, there were conventions, both Democrat and Republican, that had several ballots to determine the candidate.

They speak a great deal of the 'organization' and the 'money' that is spent on primary election campaigns as being fundamental in choosing the candidate...if so, I mirror your question, is the convention concept obsolete?

Perhaps...

amicus

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I haven't made a study of political conventions, so I may be way off base here...

But it seems to me that in most cases, the conventions are just window-dressing. Everyone knows who will be chosen long before the conventions themselves. They are, in effect, the sort of "rubber stamp" that CPSU "elections" in the Soviet Union were. (Ooh, bet I'll take some flak for that one!) The Electoral College is just as pointless.

I dunno why we have them still. But they must serve *some* purpose.

I so so so wish that John McCain had accepted the VP candidacy. *sigh* I think he's just what we need.

The conventions are really dinosaurs. Back in the day, they actually chose the candidate and back room electioneering in them was legendary. It wasn't unusual for 7 or more ballots before a candidate was selected. Machine bosses made sure they had a firm hand on who they were selling to their voting blocks and you got some extremely crooked candidates.

Now the conventions are mainly a free publicity event. The Caucases and primaries have already determined who will be the candidate.

I am glad McCain did not jump parties. I would love to see him running for president, but not playing second fiddle to John Kerry or G.W. Bush either for that matter. He is a cut above them both, IMHO.

-Colly

 

[amicus]

stray girl...


you said, "The point these days is to rally the party and energize the people actually participating in the in the campaign. Furthermore, the convention is a mechanism to focus attention on the candidates. Usually, a the candidates can expect a 5%-10% bump in the polls following the convention...."


Good points, both...but again, once upon a time, candidates were chosen and party platforms were hammered out with much debate and hurrah...perhaps just the passage of time...

thank you

amicus...

 

[Mhari]

I am glad McCain did not jump parties. I would love to see him running for president, but not playing second fiddle to John Kerry or G.W. Bush either for that matter. He is a cut above them both, IMHO.

Following politics closely makes me queasy, so perhaps I misunderstood how McCain would have been running. I had thought he'd remain Republican, just running with Kerry. Or perhaps that isn't possible? Educate me, please!

I absolutely agree with you about McCain being a cut above. It distresses me to this day that Bush was selected rather than McCain. I for one sure as hell would have "jumped parties" and voted for McCain in 2000!

~M

 

[Shallkneel4u]

I haven't made a study of political conventions, so I may be way off base here...

But it seems to me that in most cases, the conventions are just window-dressing. Everyone knows who will be chosen long before the conventions themselves. They are, in effect, the sort of "rubber stamp" that CPSU "elections" in the Soviet Union were. (Ooh, bet I'll take some flak for that one!) The Electoral College is just as pointless.

I dunno why we have them still. But they must serve *some* purpose.

I so so so wish that John McCain had accepted the VP candidacy. *sigh* I think he's just what we need.

The primary reasons for the continuance of conventions are first and foremost publicity, followed in a close second as a means of rewarding the special chosen ones at the local level for their work and donations during the primaries. Good, bad or ugly, people in American are more than willing to jump through a lot of hoops to get a ticket to a large party. Eliminate the conventions, and the hope of securing a ticket to the BIG EVENT, and you lose a huge flux of local workers at the party levels.

 

[amicus]

Shallkneel...."Good, bad and the ugly"

Down in the mud and the blood and the beer....well, I suppose, perhaps...Political party conventions, much like labor unions have outgrown or transcended whatever purpose they once served if any.

The continual haranguing on the 'american' scene, as the lowest common denominator of all things, is a little tiring after a while.

Times change...primary elections what once reflected regional and even political and philsosophical differences, have gone the way of the typewriter as it moved aside for the keyboard and the PC...

I am curious, for one, as to what might replace the 'primary' election process and the 'political convention' in the future.

amicus...

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Following politics closely makes me queasy, so perhaps I misunderstood how McCain would have been running. I had thought he'd remain Republican, just running with Kerry. Or perhaps that isn't possible? Educate me, please!

I absolutely agree with you about McCain being a cut above. It distresses me to this day that Bush was selected rather than McCain. I for one sure as hell would have "jumped parties" and voted for McCain in 2000!

~M

He could run as Vp and stay a republican. there is precedent for it, although it hasn't happened that I know of since the late 1800's. Theoretically it couls still be done, practically neither party would likely wish one unstable adherent to the other using a bullet to re seat his party.

Politically it would be suicide for McCain. His politics aren't Democrat and while he is a definte maverick, he still has the backing of the party when he runs. Iput Kerry's odds of beating Bush at no better than 50% and even if a Kerry/McCain ticket were to get the presidency, what good would it do McCain? Even if he were the incumbant VP after Kerry got 8 years the Dem's wouldn't nominate him and it is likely the GOP would was their hands of himthe day he accepted being on a Kerry ticket.

-Colly

 

[amicus]

Colly..et al...

Curious as to the renewed, belated interest in Senator McCain. Other than being a former prisoner of war, his speaking ability is negligible, his political base in contradictory, his foreign policy is highly suspect.

Is it because he cannot be defined with any accuracy that he remains attractive?

curious....amicus...

 

[Shallkneel4u]

Iput Kerry's odds of beating Bush at no better than 50% and even if a Kerry/McCain ticket were to get the presidency, what good would it do McCain?
-Colly

Short of Cheney dying of a major coronary between now and the Republican Primary, thus allowing Bush to replace him with Mc Cain, Bush's days in the Whitehouse are numbered.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colly..et al...

Curious as to the renewed, belated interest in Senator McCain. Other than being a former prisoner of war, his speaking ability is negligible, his political base in contradictory, his foreign policy is highly suspect.

Is it because he cannot be defined with any accuracy that he remains attractive?

curious....amicus...

McCain still has intergity aicus. He is also not so blindly partisan that he will be silent when the Gop is fucking up. Witness his strident denunciation of negative ads directed at democrats that impuned thier character.

He isn't in the pocket of the far right and is moderate enough that he could, concieveably engineer some compromise and some bi partisanship among the remaining moderates in both parties.

My support of McCain isn't belated. I would have prefered him to Bush. But you will almost never see anyone running against an incubant president for his parties nomination.

-Colly

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Colly..et al...

Curious as to the renewed, belated interest in Senator McCain. Other than being a former prisoner of war, his speaking ability is negligible, his political base in contradictory, his foreign policy is highly suspect.

Is it because he cannot be defined with any accuracy that he remains attractive?

curious....amicus...

"campaign finance reform"

 

[mismused]

Colly..et al...

Curious as to the renewed, belated interest in Senator McCain. Other than being a former prisoner of war, his speaking ability is negligible, his political base in contradictory, his foreign policy is highly suspect.

Is it because he cannot be defined with any accuracy that he remains attractive?

curious....amicus...

==========================


(Slowly putting own knife to own throat, these are my last words before someone commits me to being hari-Kerry-able )

We know about Bush (stupid, dumb, arrogant, lacking in educasun, yet very able to pander excessively to the pharmaceutical industry). We know about Cheney (compromised, arrogant, not stupid, not dumb, just living on another planet where Bush got born into, and did I mention arrogant?).

We know about Kerry, some good, some bad, some both .

What we don't know is about Edwards, other than that he seems too damn genuine, too damn cute, too damn well-spoken, too damn nice in every way.

I vote for too damn genuine, cute, well-spoken, and nice. Gotta vote for someone.

We can't possibly know what we really do need to know, so we go on as good a perception as we can.

The last election, I wrote in John McCain. The only regret I have is that time has proven to me, or hasn't, perhaps is the best way to put it, that it wasn't a mistake not to vote for the pompous, egotistical Gore. God, one mistake still seems as bad as the other. What a shame that was.

Maybe Edwards will do something really American, like thinking about what is best for America, and Americans, than what is the most expedient thing to do for his father's history, his friends in the, uh, business that that other country is/was in, or something that is utterly foolish like smoking cigars without lighting them.

Okay, slice away

mismused

P.S. Tried to input yesterday, but Lit messed up.

 

[Mhari]

Re: my support for McCain:

I agree entirely with what Colly said. My support isn't belated, either. I was very disappointed that McCain wound up losing in the primaries. I was annoyed that I would have to vote for that dork Gore. I wanted to be able to vote *for* someone, as opposed to *against* someone.

I still don't know WTF the Republicans were thinking, supporting Dubya over McCain. I wonder how many regret doing that now?

~M

 

[minsue]

I still don't know WTF the Republicans were thinking, supporting Dubya over McCain. I wonder how many regret doing that now?

~M

Money talks. Dubya's got connections, baby. Hell, the then gov of AZ campaigned for Dubya, not McCain. I think of that every time it's mentioned that Gore didn't take TN in the election.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Re: my support for McCain:

I agree entirely with what Colly said. My support isn't belated, either. I was very disappointed that McCain wound up losing in the primaries. I was annoyed that I would have to vote for that dork Gore. I wanted to be able to vote *for* someone, as opposed to *against* someone.

I still don't know WTF the Republicans were thinking, supporting Dubya over McCain. I wonder how many regret doing that now?

~M

I doubt many regret it. Dubya is a strict party hack. He isn't his own man, is easily controlable and acts in about the require reactionary way. McCain dosen't generally toe the party line in congress and a lot of the "New School" Gop members think of him as a loose cannon. At the same time a lot of Old School GOP members find him too liberal.

Dubya had name recognition, money, connections and was all but a lock to take texas. His brother was in a good position to deliver Florida.

Gore was running with peace, prosperity and incumbancy. i don't think the GOP really expected to win and they put forward the least objectionable candidate they could find. I voted for Bush, by and large because I hold his father in high esteem. I wonder how many people did the same, only to realize later the son is a pale shadow of the father?

-Colly

 

[Shallkneel4u]

I doubt many regret it. Dubya is a strict party hack. He isn't his own man, is easily controlable and acts in about the require reactionary way. McCain dosen't generally toe the party line in congress and a lot of the "New School" Gop members think of him as a loose cannon. At the same time a lot of Old School GOP members find him too liberal.

Dubya had name recognition, money, connections and was all but a lock to take texas. His brother was in a good position to deliver Florida.

Gore was running with peace, prosperity and incumbancy. i don't think the GOP really expected to win and they put forward the least objectionable candidate they could find. I voted for Bush, by and large because I hold his father in high esteem. I wonder how many people did the same, only to realize later the son is a pale shadow of the father?

-Colly

Bush Senior was no peach either, which is why he did not get re-elected, so your theory of like father like son was pretty much on target, unfortunately though you mistakenly held his father in high regard.