Vice Presidency

Why would Antonin Scalia have any desire to run as VP?

Your figures seem to be based on the assumption that everyone who voted in a party primary will automatically and necessarily vote for that party's nominee in the general election. That may well hold true, but I don't think it's guaranteed.

Your figures assume that all of Clinton's voters will support Obama (or vice versa), and this has been an unusually long and hard-fought campaign. The nominee will have to work hard to consolidate party support. I'm not saying that the also-ran's supporters will cross party lines, but they may stay home or skip the presidential part of the ballot on Election Day.

Of course, there's some of that on the GOP side too -- some religious conservatives said during the contested portion of the GOP campaign that they'd never support McCain.

We haven't really had the luxury of a split ticket since the days when the Vice-President was the "runner-up" in the election.

The desire to minimize internal friction and rivalry and present a somewhat united front led to the two top members of the Executive Branch belonging to the same party.

Candidates have been asked to switch affiliation or declare for one side when they had no real preference.

While neither of the winning candidates is apt to pick a running mate from the other team,they may select one of their own that has a following in the opposing party or is perceived to "balance" the ticket in some other way.

A "defector" from a third party might work better than a second-in-command from either of the major factions.

The Vice-Presidential prospect would have to seem compatable with the Chief Executive,complement the President's strengths and weaknesses and be willing and able to fulfill the role of President (and that particular President's mandate from the voters) should the President be unable to perform the duties of that office.

The President can show bi-partisanship in the choice of Cabinent members,Supreme Court nominees,ambassadors and other appointees.

The President does need to seem above petty rivalries and devoted to the welfare of the country.

It is necessary for a ruler to be able to lead as his or her own self with his or her own competencies and be able to listen to advisors and delegate authority when warranted.

Both the President and the Vice President need to be leaders and team players.

(Puppets and "Prima Donnas" need not apply.)

Whether our current Presidential candidates can demonstrate the ability to "play well with others",while they are courting our trust for themselves,will reveal much of what we can expect from them should they win the highest office in our land.

Well, considering that McCain was the apparent Republican nominee on March 4th, I would imagine that the majority of Republican voters have lost interest in voting in their respective primaries. Why take time off of work to bother voting in a primary if the nominee has already been chosen?

As for the original question of the blog, I think McCain will most likely choose "Chain-Gang Charlie" as his running-mate, although I would prefer to see someone more conservative. As for the Dems...I doubt they can patch their differences in time to choose the other for a running-mate. I have no idea who Obama might choose for a running-mate. Also, Hillary doesn't have a chance unless she pulls something shady, which I thoroughly expect. But in the end, it doesn't really matter to me since I've already decided the candidate that I'll be voting for.

The Democratic Convention is in August.

Thanks for your comments.....

Darrick....Your total numbers might impress some, but they are not factual. Your totals, in order to show HRC ahead assumes she will get the MI and FLA votes. An assumption that probably will not eventuate. As of today, Obama is ahead 568,549 votes. Creative gerrymandering of the data adds nothing to the debate.

Again your analysis is flawed. John Carney points to some flaws but you make no allowances for the several states with an open primary. There has been campaigns all across the country having Republican vote in Democratic primaries since they need not vote in the Republican primary.

Nathan..Your question "Why would Antonin Scalia have any desire to run as VP?"..I cannot answer, I don't know why anyone would want either job. (Pres. or VP) I just have studied the situation and think he may be highly considered. For his conservation credentials and the historic event if such occurs.

Nathan and Darrick....Your concern about bi-partisanship seem to me to be displaced. Obama nor Clinton have any record what-so-ever of reaching across the aisle. I know of no Bill whereby either was the prime sponsor that has a co-prime sponsor from the other party. Both espouse they can unify the country yet they are of the Party that flatly ousted a good man, Joe Liberman because he dared support Republican sponsored legislation. Contrast that with McCain's sponsorship with Sens. Liberman, Levin, Kennedy and Feingold. Democrates all.

Beware what politicians say. Behavior scientist all agree the best indicator of future behavior is past behavior, not what they say. Contrast the past behavior of all 3 major candidates re bi-partisanship and tell me the most likely to unify the two parties.

I don't know why I find it so unusual, but no one seems to have any counter predictions on VP candidates

In november ALL our votes will count, and we should ALL be voting and if you don't, quite complaining. We still are lucky enough to live in a country where we have the chance to vote for our leadership. I'm not real content with any of the choices for fall, but I will be voting.

At present I think that would cause more problems than it's worth if I tried to run for any office. I do agree that we would do better if we would find our common ground instead of focusing on the negatives.

Heck no! I think they should count em, regardless... Thousands of people are going to be outside the DNC meeting protesting. I don't think they can ignore that kind of symbolic gesture. And the majority are from both FL and MI.

But, the candidates should have gotten the opportunity to campaign in those states. Because of the rules, and the agreement that all of the candidates supposedly signed, Obama didn't campaign in those states. He wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan so you can't say those people had a fair election anyway. The best thing for the party would have been to have a new election, but it's way too late for that now. It's the states' fault that their delegates were in question in the first place.

First I think no chance for Obama/Clinton and certainly no Clinton/Obama if the long shot happened and Clinton prevailed in the primary. Politically Incorrect by Carl McClanahan ~ May 26, 2008

I think their may be a chance for OBAMA/Clinton after all.....