It is useless to speculate on who Gore and Bush will pick for their running mates. So let’s do it, people! Hop to it!
Here are some wild-ass guesses from your local WAGmaster, Boris B.
G. W. Bush will pick the chairman of the House Republican Conference, J.C. Watts, jr. of Oklahoma. Young, squeaky clean, a Baptists minister, ex-football player - Watts is perfect. He gave the Republican reply to the State of the Union address in 1997. He has Capitol Hill experience, which Bush lacks. Of course, Texas and Oklahoma isn’t a very balanced combo geographically, but neither was Tennessee and Arkansas.
Albert Gore will pick Barbara Boxer. Big state, lots of experience, legislative accomplishments. I’d write more but it’s beddybye time.
What do you think? Give me your WAGs! Bush-Fulani 2000? Gore-Trump 2000?
I keep thinking that Gore will pick Gray Davis as his veep, mainly for the big state possibilities. Also, he hasn’t done much on a national stage, so he will neither overshadow Gore nor is he well-known enough to really turn people off.
As for Bush, I think he will pick John Engler, Gov. of Michigan. He represents a key state, has played a major support role for Bush, and doesn’t seem to have much negative baggage. Of course, since I don’t live in Michigan, I may not know of any negatives that actually exist.
Watts would be a good choice in theory, but it might look like too much pandering, as Watts is the only prominent black in the Republican party. He could choose a less blatant pander…a woman. Probably not Elizabeth Dole; more likely Christine Todd Whitman or Kay Bailey Hutchinson. There are enough prominent Republican women that it could look reasonable without being assumed to be a pander.
Boxer seems to me like a good choice for Gore. Only problem with her is that she’s too much of a hard-line liberal to get Gore the swing voters he needs to attract if he’s to take the whole country (California’s a big pot, but Bush is probably assured of Florida and Texas, so grabbing it doesn’t make the national election a sure thing.) One other possibility for him is Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, if he wants to win some Campaign-finance-reform brownie points with the McCain crowd. Problem with that is that Feingold might be too principled to accept a nomination from Gore, with his very checkered campaign finance history.
I think Gore could get away with picking a Catholic, but Uke may be right on the other counts. There are still a lot of prejudices out there among the voting public, and I think this election will be close enough that Gore can’t afford to alienate anybody.
I also expect Gore to pick a white male. Personally I expect he may look for another Southerner. The two-Southerner thing worked pretty well for Clinton-Gore. I think it would be very difficult to win the general election without taking more southern states than just Tennessee. Gore may be technically from Tennessee, but everyone knows he is more a product of DC than of his home state.
There could be a problem with Gore picking another southerner for his ticket. While it did work for Clinton/Gore, it was aided by the lead on the ticket being personable and someone that inspired strong emotions in people (on both sides.) However, Gore doesn’t seem to inspire much emotion among anyone. If he picks someone from the same area with the same lack of zest, his ticket isn’t really helped. He may need to go with a pick that sparks up an emotion or 2 among the populace.
Bush would be helped by picking someone that has solid appeal in a particular region (kind of like my Engler pick earlier). Combined with Jeb in Florida, Bush has pretty solid name recognition in the South, but he could use the addition of a popular name from another region of the country that is viewed as a swing vote area.
Engler of Michigan. Another ‘out-of-Washington’ type could help keep distance between the Bush campaign and the Republicans in Congress (who carry too much negative baggage for most people’s taste). He could also tip the balance in Michigan and Ohio- 41 electoral votes, which is almost as much as California. But a lot of people who voted for McCain in the Republican Michigan primary stated they were voting for McCain as a statement against Engler, who was backing Bush; that lack of home-state support may push Bush to look for some one else, perhaps…
Christine Todd Whitman. New Jersey’s 15 votes would be a nice addition to the Bush bottom line, and Whitman may help Bush’s performace in Pennsylvania, meaning Bush can hope to get about 38 votes from Whitman on the ticket just for geography; but more importantly, having a woman as VP choice can help close the gender gap between his and Gore’s numbers.
J.C. Watts. Yes, it’ll be seen as pandering. But it will also be seen as a chance to elect the first African-American VP, and I think that will swing a lot of people- both to and against it, I realize, but polls and surveys I’ve seen show that the average African-American voter tends to hold to a conservative view on social issues, and by selecting Watts as VP, Bush might unlock the stranglehold that Democrats have had on the African-American vote since '64.
Of those, I think Engler is the most likely, but by God I hope Bush picks Watts.
I’d be in a bind if Bush picked Whitman. I can’t stand Dubya, but I like Whitman. I’d be tempted to vote for Dub and hope he resigns or something. :rolleyes:
What about Pete Dominici? Stable, scandal-free, brilliant, boring . . .
Just a curiosity: Why, amongst the Rust Belt Governors, does everyone think Michigan’s Engler is the most likely Bush pick? Why not Wisconsin’s Tommy Thompson (major welfare reform credentials), Ohio’s Voinovich (he’s a Senator now, so he’s got both outside-the-beltway and inside-the-beltway credentials) or Pennsylvania’s Tom Ridge?
Not that I’m necessarily arguing, I’m just curious what Engler’s got that these other three don’t.
If Bush chooses Whitman, I’ll be utterly shocked. I don’t see any way that a pro-choice Republican, much less a pro-choice woman, gets on the ticket. There’s too much risk of alienating the religious right. And, though I hate to say it, I think the fear of losing what I’ll euphemistically term the “traditionalist” vote will preclude Watts from being a viable candidate. Which is too bad, because the stranglehold white males have on the highest offices in the land is getting ridiculous, and has been used, in those perverse bouts of conflated Social Darwinism, to justify views of racial and gender-based superiority.
Personally I wish Gore would choose Ed Rendell, as I’ve said in other threads, but I don’t think it’ll happen (if nothing else, he probably wants to put a couple of years of being the DNC Chair under his belt). But I’d vote for him any day blindfolded.
Chaim: If Dubya picks Voinovich, look for EVERYONE in the media to suddenly remember how his Old Man stood by smiling inanely when his supporters mocked Dukakis about his “unAmerican” name, back in 1988.
However, I think it will be a recurring topic until it’s announced. For Gore, I read an expert
who said it’s between the former governor of Indiana, Evan Bayh (not Quayle), Sens.
Feingold D-Wis and Feinstein D-Cal, and a Clinton cabinet member whose name eludes
me. Sec of defense I think. Also, I heard the former Philly mayor is possible.
Hey, how about if Al picks Bill Clinton as his running mate?
Then, two days after the Inauguration, Al perishes in a tragic spelunking accident, and Bill steps back into the Oval Office, consoling a grieving nation.
And incidentally free to continue with his master plan to move the United States further along the slippery slope to a Soviet-style Socialistic System firmly under the iron bootheels of NY Senator Hillary and himself…heh heh heh.