As a running mate? I myself probably won’t vote for Bush (Gore either) but I’m realistic that he could win, so I think his choice of V.P. is an important one. The vice Perpetrator is only 1 heartbeat away from the presidency, and he/she usually becomes the candidate in 8 years (if the prez gets 2 terms). What I don’t understand is why Bush is considering Ridge. I can’t see the practicality of it. Ridge is pro-choice & pro-gun control, 2 huge issues that run opposite of Bush & the general Republican/conservative/right wing beliefs. What possible benefit could Ridge supply to Bush’s chances that would be greater than the minus he brings with these issues?
Considering that there are a lot of people out there who vote entirely on those two issues (especially on the anti-abortion and anti-gun control side), I can’t imagine that it would help him. It might bring a few more liberal types into the fold, but it will probably push more than that over to Buchanan’s side.
Dr. J
Thats fairly normal in picking a running mate. The conventional wisdom is pick someone that is different from you geographically and/or issue-wise, so that together you appeal to a larger number of voters. How effective it is in reality I’m not so sure about. I mean, how many people actually base their vote on who the VP is? I doubt very many.
This could be one of the few elections in which picking a VP could make all the difference. The latest poll has them even, so they need every edge that they can get. George Bush would definitely win if he has John McCain or Colin Powell as his running mate, although both said that they wouldn’t run. Tom Ridge would be very risky, and might pull some right-wingers to Buchanan’s side. But it might work.
As a conservative, I can’t think of a single plus to picking Tom Ridge. It’s not as if abortion is the one and only issue on which Tom Ridge deviates from Republican core principles. He was a very liberal Congressman, who always voted to cut military spending, and to increase whatever spending program the Pennsylvania unions supported.
As governor of Pennsylvania. he’s been a solid administraor, and has passed several small tax cuts. All well and good. But not good enough that I could ever support him as President or Vice President.
Regardless, the importance of the Veep candidate is highly overrated. Has there ever been a more respected Veep candidate than Lloyd Bentsen, or one as universally scoffed at as Dan Quayle? How much difference did it make? In the end, NOBODY voted for the Democrats because of Lloyd Bentsen, and Quayle didn’t cost the GOP any significant number of votes.
MAYBE, if the PResidential candidate were a guy with a history of health problems, voters might care about the Veep. But neither George W. nor Al Gore has any health problems. The Veeps won’t matter a whit.
True, I don’t think that differences on many issues would make any difference in the outcome. These are different, though.
The ardent pro-lifers might say that choosing a pro-choice candidate shows that Bush is not “totally committed” in his opposition to abortion. Same goes, to a lesser extent, for gun control.
Thus, I think he will lose more than he gains.
Dr. J
Maybe he should just choose Quayle. He would be one of the few choices who might make Bush seem halfway articulate by comparison, and it would create a new family tradition at the same time, albeit a rather disturbing one.
There would be a benefit to picking Ridge–Pennsylvania is a swing state, and Ridge on the ticket would virtually guarantee it goes for Bush.
As for the real dyed-in-the-wool righties who don’t like Ridge…are they willing to cut their noses off to spite their faces, by withholding their votes and making sure someone they hate even more is the next president? If so, they get what they deserve.
(Of course…we allget what the majority deserves. Depressing, isn’t it?)
No, we don’t. Because of the “first past the post” American system, only the candidate/party with the most votes wins. Clinton, for example, only won 43% of the votes casted in 1992. Hardly a majority, not even taking into consideration the large number of Americans who didn’t bother to vote (another symptom of the system, since people feel less represented if given a narrow choice of parties.)
Now that is truly depressing.
good morning friends
thethill wrote:
this, imho, is exactly why mr. clinton won a second term. the fact that mr. dole, with his long record of service and political expertise, was unable to win against his scandal ridden opponent really points to the fragmentation of the gop.
it is possible that the simple majority (51%) is a thing of the past. the last two elections have shown the small but growing reform party making an inroad into the two party system. a 51% majority in a three way race is unlikely.
mysterecks wrote:
another sound explanation for mr. clinton’s victory. the more conservative members of the gop were unable to vote for the moderate mr. dole, and so stayed home on election day.
it seems to me that the reform party is a large factor. they appeal to fiscal conservatives. possibly, mr. buchannan as their candidate will broaden their appeal to the social conservatives and draw even more gop voters, thereby increasing mr. gore’s chances of winning.
i do not know if the v.p. choice is that critical, but mr. mondale would have had a better chance, imho, without ms, ferraro.
There’s a fine line between “cutting off your nose to spite your face” and caving in on your principles. That’s true no matter what your beliefs are.
Sometimes, you HAVE to settle for half a loaf. Sometimes, if you demand absolute purity from politicians, you find that you can’t, in good conscience, vote for ANYBODY, and you practically hand the election to your opponent. That’s usually foolish, so I’ve usually found SOME good reason to support one candidate over another.
But Tom Ridge is NOT a conservative who differs with me on one point (abortion). He’s a liberal who differs with me on virtually everything that matters. The ONLY thing in his record that’s in any way appealing is his tax-cutting as governor of Pennsylvania. The question is, do I ignore EVERYTHING he stands for just because he MIGHT cut my taxes?
Don’t get me wrong- IF he’s the VP candidate, I’ll almost certainly vote for Bush anyway. But based on his record, I’d say President Tom Ridge would be exactly like President Bill CLinton (except without the draft dodging, womanizing and lying). To me, that is NOT much of an improvement. I may very well hold my nose, vote for him, and pray that Bush stays healthy- but don’t expect ANY conservative to show enthusiasm for Ridge. He doesn’t deserve it.