Richardson drops out of VP race

[CADsortaGUY]

Hmmmm

I wonder if this has anything to do with kerry failing to mention his no licenses for illegals stance when talking to "La Raza".


My money is still on Pillage-N-sack. Oh and supposedly the announcement is coming on Tuesday...guess where kerry is going to be on the 4th? Yep...right here in Iowa.

CkG

 

[halik]

hilary!

 

[tallest1]

This news is confusing me a bit. Last time we heard news of Kerry coming public to announce a VP, news came up that McCain said no. The announcement date past and no VP was announced. Now we're hearing Kerry is going to announce a VP (again), and then news comes up that Richardson said no. Help me out with this if you can but is Kerry making these VP announcement dates under the assumption that the people he talks to are going to say 'yes'?

 

[bozack]

Did he even ask Edwards? do you think he plans to? hopefully it isn't Hillary as that would be too much, either way he is two for two now....doesn't look good.

 

[PELarson]

Richardson has been saying no since the first rumour emerged back in March or April.

 

[PELarson]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
[L=Hmmmm]My money is still on Pillage-N-sack. Oh and supposedly the announcement is coming on Tuesday...guess where kerry is going to be on the 4th? Yep...right here in Iowa.

CkG

Cheney is a Republican and already VP. Why would Senator Kerry chose VP Cheney as a running mate?

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: PELarson
Richardson has been saying no since the first rumour emerged back in March or April.

Exactly. I don't know why the media is all over it now. Just another example of how the country's sensationalist media has failed their simple duty of reporting the news....

 

[nageov3t]

Edwards, IMO, would be the best choice. He is a lively and energetic speaker with a great personality, to balance out Kerry's more "stoic" demeanor. Plus, he might help Kerry win over some of the Southern states.

 

[NeoV]

why would the media report it now? How about because he and Kerry just finished meeting, in person, and Richardson announced, to that same media, that he was officially out of the running?

None of his prior 'declines' absolutely shut the door on the possibility - that door is now shut, and reported as thus.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: loki8481
Edwards, IMO, would be the best choice. He is a lively and energetic speaker with a great personality, to balance out Kerry's more "stoic" demeanor. Plus, he might help Kerry win over some of the Southern states.

I think the South is pretty much lost for Kerry (except Florida of course). The fact is, George W. Bush is absolutely loved down here. Well not absolutely, but enough to put all the states out of reach. Edwards won't help him much in his own home state, let alone all of the South.

I think too much focus is put in the South. Al Gore showed that one could win without it just as long as Florida is won. Kerry needs a minority (black, hispanic, or woman) moderate who has strong economic "cred". That will most likely put him over the top in the swing states, because quite frankly Dick Cheney is the most unlikeable VP in modern history.

This will allow Kerry to campaign as the strong commander-in-chief with the military and leadership experience, while his VP can focus on the domestic and economic side of things. At the VP debates, when Cheney blathers on and on about war and terrorism, Kerry's VP can simply point out that the President is the Commander-In-Chief and in John Kerry the American people can find that person. The Commander-In-Chief shouldn't need his deputy to cheerlead for him.

Alright, enough of my (most likely wrong) critique of the situation.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: NeoV
why would the media report it now? How about because he and Kerry just finished meeting, in person, and Richardson announced, to that same media, that he was officially out of the running?

None of his prior 'declines' absolutely shut the door on the possibility - that door is now shut, and reported as thus.

Saying "I will finish out my term to the people of New Mexico" before all this broke seemed pretty final to me. Its the same as Hillary saying it about her Senate seat for New York. And I'm not criticizing the press for merely "reporting" it. I criticized them for "being all over it", because quite frankly it wasn't very big news and it was expected. The press showed equal ridiculousness in its McCain for VP reporting. McCain kept on denying it and the media kept on pushing it.

Its like reporting that the sun rose this morning.

 

[MrGrim257]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: loki8481
Edwards, IMO, would be the best choice. He is a lively and energetic speaker with a great personality, to balance out Kerry's more "stoic" demeanor. Plus, he might help Kerry win over some of the Southern states.

I think the South is pretty much lost for Kerry (except Florida of course). The fact is, George W. Bush is absolutely loved down here. Well not absolutely, but enough to put all the states out of reach. Edwards won't help him much in his own home state, let alone all of the South.

I think too much focus is put in the South. Al Gore showed that one could win without it just as long as Florida is won. Kerry needs a minority (black, hispanic, or woman) moderate who has strong economic "cred". That will most likely put him over the top in the swing states, because quite frankly Dick Cheney is the most unlikeable VP in modern history.

This will allow Kerry to campaign as the strong commander-in-chief with the military and leadership experience, while his VP can focus on the domestic and economic side of things. At the VP debates, when Cheney blathers on and on about war and terrorism, Kerry's VP can simply point out that the President is the Commander-In-Chief and in John Kerry the American people can find that person. The Commander-In-Chief shouldn't need his deputy to cheerlead for him.

Alright, enough of my (most likely wrong) critique of the situation.

I'd almost bet money that Colin Powell is going to slide into the VP slot, and Cheney will take another post.

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

I think the South is pretty much lost for Kerry (except Florida of course). The fact is, George W. Bush is absolutely loved down here. Well not absolutely, but enough to put all the states out of reach. Edwards won't help him much in his own home state, let alone all of the South.

I think too much focus is put in the South. Al Gore showed that one could win without it just as long as Florida is won. Kerry needs a minority (black, hispanic, or woman) moderate who has strong economic "cred". That will most likely put him over the top in the swing states, because quite frankly Dick Cheney is the most unlikeable VP in modern history.

This will allow Kerry to campaign as the strong commander-in-chief with the military and leadership experience, while his VP can focus on the domestic and economic side of things. At the VP debates, when Cheney blathers on and on about war and terrorism, Kerry's VP can simply point out that the President is the Commander-In-Chief and in John Kerry the American people can find that person. The Commander-In-Chief shouldn't need his deputy to cheerlead for him.

Alright, enough of my (most likely wrong) critique of the situation.

Kerry needs to be competitve in the South. He may not win one southern state saved Florida but he needs to be at least 45% in the some of the Southern Border states (i.e. Virginia(warner??), North Carolina (Edwards??). The electoral math is so complicated with so many combinations to victory, the candidate must run a nationwide campaign and cannot take any region for granted. I think he needs to pick Edwards. It may not be the most unexpected choice but it is the one most likely to attract independents and southerns across the board and not just in the home state.
-------

Regrding the topic, if you look at Richardson, he had made the rounds of the political shows and news shows ... more so than many. I'll bet he would have accepted if offered. You generally only take yourself out of VP contention with an announcement when the Presidential candidate has already told you privately that you aren't going to be picked. You are saving face as I imagine what Richardson is doing.

CAD- if Kerry has some concerns that Edwards does not have enough experience to be president and that Edwards may not have enough foreign policy experience, then Vilsack is even more of a concern. People are going to be scratching their heads and say who?
You win Iowa and be competitive in the midwest and add perhaps to PA but it's too risky and I think Kerry is a very conventional candidate.
----------
I have read that they have put out feelers to Hagel.

 

[NeoV]

my understanding of the electoral process is that if you win a state, you get that state's electoral votes - it doesn't matter how close it is, so he doesn't need to pull at least 45% of any state that he loses - feel free to correct me, but that is how I recall it working.

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: NeoV
my understanding of the electoral process is that if you win a state, you get that state's electoral votes - it doesn't matter how close it is, so he doesn't need to pull at least 45% of any state that he loses - feel free to correct me, but that is how I recall it working.

If Kerry gets 45% in Alabama or Mississippi or South Carolina ... it's over for GWB.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: NeoV
my understanding of the electoral process is that if you win a state, you get that state's electoral votes - it doesn't matter how close it is, so he doesn't need to pull at least 45% of any state that he loses - feel free to correct me, but that is how I recall it working.

That's pretty much correct for the vast majority of states. I think currently NH (or maybe Maine) gives proportional delegates by state law. Currently, Colorado is under legislation to do the same (or it may have recently passed).

I agree with Chowderhead that he must run a national campaign to win, but I don't that having Edwards on the ticket makes that big of a difference in the South. And I think Edwards' inexperience (he doesn't have much of an economic track record) will be a huge liability, regardless of how likeable and wellspoken he is.

If Kerry can choose a candidate that will guarantee him a swing state, he should definitely go for him/her. This person will most likely be a moderate who could appeal not just in the South, but the Midwest too because of credentials.

But maybe I'm wrong and all the American public really cares about is charm and speaking ability. In which case Edwards obviously wins.

 

[MrGrim257]

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: NeoV
my understanding of the electoral process is that if you win a state, you get that state's electoral votes - it doesn't matter how close it is, so he doesn't need to pull at least 45% of any state that he loses - feel free to correct me, but that is how I recall it working.

If Kerry gets 45% in Alabama or Mississippi or South Carolina ... it's over for GWB.

I live in Alabama, and you can bet your A$$ he isnt getting 45% here.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: chowderhead
CAD- if Kerry has some concerns that Edwards does not have enough experience to be president and that Edwards may not have enough foreign policy experience, then Vilsack is even more of a concern. People are going to be scratching their heads and say who?
You win Iowa and be competitive in the midwest and add perhaps to PA but it's too risky and I think Kerry is a very conventional candidate.

vilsack has plenty of experience, and since kerry seems to like to continuously tell people he is a Vietnam veteran then he probably doesn't think he needs someone with foreign policy experience. I don't like vilsack for a variety of reasons, but I do think that he'd fit right in with the kerry campaign. He won't upstage kerry like edwards most definitely will. It's great that edwards is supposedly the popular pick, but then why didn't people choose him in the first place? Do I sense some buyer's remorse?

Anyway - my money is on pillage-N-sack.

CkG

 

[smashp]

Edwards was a lawyer Right?

Maybe attorney general?

but he was a trial lawyer right.

gephardt might sway Missouri, but is as boring as Al Gore.

Hillary as Vp might happen, If that happens and they Win, Rush will be oh so entertaining again. ( He is better at bashing the Pres than defending them, plus I enjoy anyone Who Puts Pressure on politicians.)

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: NeoV
my understanding of the electoral process is that if you win a state, you get that state's electoral votes - it doesn't matter how close it is, so he doesn't need to pull at least 45% of any state that he loses - feel free to correct me, but that is how I recall it working.

If Kerry gets 45% in Alabama or Mississippi or South Carolina ... it's over for GWB.

There's no doubt that Kerry has energized some of the people down here, but Bush had one it more-so. I would bet you a million dollars that Bush does better than he did in 2000. Kerry might make better in-roads in TN, FL, KY, or similar states. If Kerry picks Edwards it will do a lot in helping me to vote for Kerry.