Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
my prediction it will be a democrat hilary/obama ticket, and a guliani/fred thompson ticket, if fred doesnt want vp, then mit romney.
I don't see Hilary picking Obama as her running mate unless she views him as a threat and needs to keep him under her control aka assign him to perform low-level activities to diminish his starpower and lessen the threat to her that he could have in the Senate. If I was Obama I would not take her offer to be VP should she extend one. Her unofficial VP will be Bill Clinton and the real VP's role will be diminished.
I do think a Giuliani/Thompson ticket would be a good idea. Thompson could concentrate on the flyover states (not meant disrespectfully, I live in one) and Giuliani could concentrate on the big cities/states during the campaigning after the primary. I really think it's the best combo shot to beat Clinton. The worst mistake Rudy could make is pick a VP that would appeal to the same demographics that he does. Thompson has Senate experience. Giuliani has management/leadership experience (NYC is bigger than many states). Both are law and order (little L and little O) guys. Both would be great on terrorism. I think this is a good combo. Both are excellent communicators. Both Thompson and Giuliani are the candidates the Democrat attack dogs target the most, so I would have to think they also fear this combo. (P.S. Not sure yet that a Thompson/Giuliani combo vs a Giuliani/Thompson combo is a better bet to win.) I, personally, like both of them but we're speculating about winning.
I don't think Romney is electable and even more than that, don't I see him adding anything of value to a Giuliani as president ticket or to a Giuliani presidency. With all of the money Romney has and his so-called "great" staff, he's not moving any mountains now in the polls. He's kind of the "Eh" candidate. Looks a little too slick, doesn't say anything memorable. He's a snooze. After the Mormon thing died down, no one seems to be going after this guy so I would have to say the Dems aren't afraid of him, either. If he gets the Presidential nomination, the Republicans lose in the general election.
I don't see Hilary picking Obama as her running mate unless she views him as a threat and needs to keep him under her control aka assign him to perform low-level activities to diminish his starpower and lessen the threat to her that he could have in the Senate. If I was Obama I would not take her offer to be VP should she extend one. Her unofficial VP will be Bill Clinton and the real VP's role will be diminished.
I do think a Giuliani/Thompson ticket would be a good idea. Thompson could concentrate on the flyover states (not meant disrespectfully, I live in one) and Giuliani could concentrate on the big cities/states during the campaigning after the primary. I really think it's the best combo shot to beat Clinton. The worst mistake Rudy could make is pick a VP that would appeal to the same demographics that he does. Thompson has Senate experience. Giuliani has management/leadership experience (NYC is bigger than many states). Both are law and order (little L and little O) guys. Both would be great on terrorism. I think this is a good combo. Both are excellent communicators. Both Thompson and Giuliani are the candidates the Democrat attack dogs target the most, so I would have to think they also fear this combo. (P.S. Not sure yet that a Thompson/Giuliani combo vs a Giuliani/Thompson combo is a better bet to win.) I, personally, like both of them but we're speculating about winning.
I don't think Romney is electable and even more than that, don't I see him adding anything of value to a Giuliani as president ticket or to a Giuliani presidency. With all of the money Romney has and his so-called "great" staff, he's not moving any mountains now in the polls. He's kind of the "Eh" candidate. Looks a little too slick, doesn't say anything memorable. He's a snooze. After the Mormon thing died down, no one seems to be going after this guy so I would have to say the Dems aren't afraid of him, either. If he gets the Presidential nomination, the Republicans lose in the general election.
Your comments about a Giuliani/Thompson ticket makes sense, however, should Hiliary have Obama as her veep it would help secure the women and black votes. Giuliani is too liberal for me, but all things being equal if the polls are correct and he gets the nomination and Hiliary gets it for the dems, Giuliani has some options.
Thompson: would help ease conservative voters, like me, that at least the #2 man is a conservative (myself I like what Ron Paul has been saying, but there's no chance Giuliani will name him as veep)
McCain: would likely steal more moderate votes from Hiliary, of course Giuliani at the top would do that just the same; plus McCain on the ticket would tick off conservative voters and they would stay home
name a woman as veep:
I don't know what conservative./republican woman would appeal to most voters and hurt Hiliary, but some who come to mind include N-C senator Libby Dole, Texas senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson
Again who knows if these people would like to run with Giuliani given his liberal views. We'll see.
Your comments about a Giuliani/Thompson ticket makes sense, however, should Hiliary have Obama as her veep it would help secure the women and black votes.
That may be true but I think there is nothing in it for Obama to be her VP. I think he won't even be Second Top Guy in the White House. He'd be Third Top Guy after the unofficial Bill Clinton. Hillary would take the glory jobs, pass the important "I need to trust the guy" jobs and the "top advisor" job off to Bill Clinton and VP Obama's jobs would be largely ceremonial and unimportant. She might trot him out if she needed the African American community to support her on something. Unlike Dick Cheney to George Bush, basically, Obama offers no experience to her that she and her husband don't already possess so if she picks him as her running mate, I see her only picking him to ensure she wins the election and to control him so he isn't the compare and contrast guy should he command power in the Senate during her 1st term as President.
Like I've said before, if I was Obama, and considering the good showing he is making now, and Hillary offered me the VP job, I'd decline it and use the next few years to build my reputation in the Senate. He's young enough to have more shots at the presidency. I think his future chances go down, not up, if he's her VP and a lot of that has to do with Bill Clinton usurping the role of the elected VP and her managerial style.
That may be true but I think there is nothing in it for Obama to be her VP. I think he won't even be Second Top Guy in the White House. He'd be Third Top Guy after the unofficial Bill Clinton. Hillary would take the glory jobs, pass the important "I need to trust the guy" jobs and the "top advisor" job off to Bill Clinton and VP Obama's jobs would be largely ceremonial and unimportant. She might trot him out if she needed the African American community to support her on something. Unlike Dick Cheney to George Bush, basically, Obama offers no experience to her that she and her husband don't already possess so if she picks him as her running mate, I see her only picking him to ensure she wins the election and to control him so he isn't the compare and contrast guy should he command power in the Senate during her 1st term as President.
Like I've said before, if I was Obama, and considering the good showing he is making now, and Hillary offered me the VP job, I'd decline it and use the next few years to build my reputation in the Senate. He's young enough to have more shots at the presidency. I think his future chances go down, not up, if he's her VP and a lot of that has to do with Bill Clinton usurping the role of the elected VP and her managerial style.
I just pray to God that Hiliary and Bill aren't elected...the country doesn't need to go through the 1990s all over again.
I just pray to God that Hiliary and Bill aren't elected...the country doesn't need to go through the 1990s all over again.
Yes, that would be a shame.
Peace, prosperity, uggh. I'm getting ill just thinking about it.
Who wants that when we can have war, out of control inflation, a real estate market that has turned into a Ponzi scheme, companies outsourcing by the thousands with no restrictions, oil companies raping the world, and let's not forget the destruction of that awful constitution driven by right wing religious leaders.
Peace, prosperity, uggh. I'm getting ill just thinking about it.
Who wants that when we can have war, out of control inflation, a real estate market that has turned into a Ponzi scheme, companies outsourcing by the thousands with no restrictions, oil companies raping the world, and let's not forget the destruction of that awful constitution driven by right wing religious leaders.
Location: Moved to town. Miss 'my' woods and critters.
25,464 posts, read 13,570,117 times
Reputation: 31765
Just now reading some of these posts. Wow...Take 'time for a change'...We have been having time for a change many times over and I have yet to see a united front from most of us. Can any single candidate or party ever satisfy the majority of us? And why oh why does every single issue just HAVE to be a party line? If you vote for a person, you automatically vote for that party. The candidate must have the backing, financial, esp. of his/her co-harts.
It would be so gratifying to have a few candidates that stood for what the majority of us believe in. Bur how do we get that thought across to those now running?
I get so disgusted to see every single issue labeled as either Democrat or Republican. Then the 'Other' party has to disagree simply due to the fact that 'their' party did not invent such a thought.
I personally am interested in seeing Thompson running for President. Probably never happen. Or as an earlier post stated: Giuliani and Thompson.
Peace, prosperity, uggh. I'm getting ill just thinking about it.
Yeah, a lot of "peace" during the '90s... the '93 World Trader Center Bombing, the '96 Oklahoma city bombing, the terrorist attacks at U.S. embassies, the 2000 U.S.S. Cole attack...
Quote:
Who wants that when we can have war, out of control inflation, a real estate market that has turned into a Ponzi scheme, companies outsourcing by the thousands with no restrictions, oil companies raping the world, and let's not forget the destruction of that awful constitution driven by right wing religious leaders.
It would really be nice if you did some research before posting. The current inflation rate is only 2.69%. It was 12.9% in Nov., 1979 under Carter. Which figure is more "out of control?"
Yeah, a lot of "peace" during the '90s... the '93 World Trader Center Bombing, the '96 Oklahoma city bombing, the terrorist attacks at U.S. embassies, the 2000 U.S.S. Cole attack...
It would really be nice if you did some research before posting. The current inflation rate is only 2.69%. It was 12.9% in Nov., 1979 under Carter. Which figure is more "out of control?"
Exactly!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
