Ultimate VP Poll

[jorlowitz]

It's been done before, but not like this.

(LINK) -- The Ultimate VP Poll -- (LINK) (http://theronpauldatabase.googlepages.com/polls)


29 choices. Libertarians. Democrats. Progressives. Independents. Who's great? Who fits?

*Feel free to check out the site while you're there. (I couldn't do it on rpforums since polls are limited to 10 choices).

[Razmear]

I voted for Mark Sanford, SC Gov.

eb

[Bradley in DC]

Pretty cool. Only Gary Johnson was missing!

[jorlowitz]

Damn, missed one... Who's GJ?

[Bradley in DC]

Damn, missed one... Who's GJ?

GGGRRRRRR.:mad:

Gary Johnson was the Ron Paul-like governor of New Mexico who vetoed everything, pissed off the powers that be and has been an outspoken critic of the war on drugs. Like Sanford, Johnson has executive branch experience which I think we need to balance the ticket.

[Bradley in DC]

Oh, and I think it would allow me to vote more than once. You know how we Ron Paul supporters like to spam polls! :rolleyes:

[jorlowitz]

Ok, added Johnson. Looks like a solid guy. Yup, no anti-spam measures here...

[Hurricane Bruiser]

Well I voted for all the people listed in about the order of importance. Several got high marks, most received one star, and a few were in the middle. I think someone with name recognition, legislative or executive experience, and a free market, libertarian streak would be best. Bob Barr seemed pretty good to me but having a woman as VP might be good especially if Hillary was nominated by the Dems.

[DeadheadForPaul]

My top 3 are Sanford, Barr, and Elder

[Hurricane Bruiser]

If after a few weeks, it is clear who the top 10 are, perhaps a poll on the forums would be a good idea. There are some socialists IMO on that list that I truly don't see Ron Paul accepting as VP nor would we want him to. I'm not against a Dem but their ideas need to be pretty close to RP.

[jorlowitz]

Yeah, I'd like to see 500-1000 entries before compiling the data... after that I'll run a second round on the forum. It should be interesting to see how the voting breaks down by individual but also by party. I think the support for RP's VP will be pretty diverse, and even some of the "socialist" candidates may attract a good deal of support from across the aisle. There are many types of people who think the current system disenfranchises them. Some of them think the solution is a strong limited-government pair (a la Paul-Sanford or Paul-Johnson), but others think partisanship rather than too much government per se is the problem. For them, candidates like Kucinich, Feingold, or even Obama have appeal.

[FSP-Rebel]

My 1-2-3 is Palin, Sanford, Napolitano

[Nash]

Sanford and Palin are clearly the future of the liberty movement. They are also considered "mainstream" as far as liberty candidates go.

I don't think getting Palin is realistic now though. She is "inexperienced" and just started her term as governor. 2012 or 2016 is more realistic for her.

I love Bob Barr and Pat Buchanan but I think they are too polarizing, not in terms of their voting records but in terms of how people perceive them.

Jesse Ventura is all sorts of awesome and also not interested in politics. Maybe a Ron Paul primary win would change his mind.

Sanford would be ideal. He's credible. He's experienced. He's from the south but not considered "extreme" in the eyes of the media.

[SeanEdwards]

R. Lee Ermey should be added.

;)

[TheMikael]

My top three:
Sanford
Palin
Johnson

Although I do like Buchanan.

[Syren123]

R. Lee Ermey should be added.

;)

LOL!!! Great idea!!

[sunny]

Dr. Paul has stated that Mark Sanford is his choice for VP!

[quickmike]

5 stars to Michael Badnarik and Ray McGovern.

Badnarik VP and Ray McGovern sec of defense.

[BuddyRey]

My top picks: Mike Gravel, Gary Johnson, and Lou Dobbs!

[quickmike]

My top picks: Mike Gravel, Gary Johnson, and Lou Dobbs!

But Mike Gravel is reeeeealy socialist on a lot of things, but I suppose if he wasnt in a position to make laws, it wouldnt be that bad to have a "tell it like it is" guy in there somewhere. Nothing I like more than a grumpy old man that takes no crap from anyone. The socialism thing is kinda spooky though. Gotta think about who would be pres if something happened to RP.

[BuddyRey]

But Mike Gravel is reeeeealy socialist on a lot of things, but I suppose if he wasnt in a position to make laws, it wouldnt be that bad to have a "tell it like it is" guy in there somewhere. Nothing I like more than a grumpy old man that takes no crap from anyone. The socialism thing is kinda spooky though. Gotta think about who would be pres if something happened to RP.

That's what most of the folks on this forum with conservative economic leanings think, and I do respect that opinion. I'm just not quite sure the "socialist" label fits him, because I always think of socialism as a "nanny-state" mentality. Gravel wants to end the drug war, and has a pretty reasonable stance on guns (from what I've read anyway). I could be biased though, 'cause I'm a bit of a universal healthcare pinko myself. :o

Edit: Oh yeah, and he helped end the draft! Forgot about that one!

[quickmike]

That's what most of the folks on this forum with conservative economic leanings think, and I do respect that opinion. I'm just not quite sure the "socialist" label fits him, because I always think of socialism as a "nanny-state" mentality. Gravel wants to end the drug war, and has a pretty reasonable stance on guns (from what I've read anyway). I could be biased though, 'cause I'm a bit of a universal healthcare pinko myself. :o

Yeah, but first ask yourself this question........ Can you name a single government program that is a success, that operates within budget, and successfully provides the service cheaper than the free market? Hard pressed to find a single one. (and dont say the Post Office, because its a govt regulated monopoly LOL) Gravel isnt a bad guy I dont think. His heart is in the right place, but I dont see how him and RP would get along on things like universal healthcare, or universal anything for that matter. I do see few things that they agree on though.

[Keith]

It would really be cool if the VP selection could be made using the condorcet method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method).

[mtmedlin]

My 1-2-3 is Palin, Sanford, Napolitano

I agree but different order. Sanford as VP, Napolitano as AG (then later Supreme court) and after RP is out of office. Sanford for President Palin VP.

[jorlowitz]

The Condorcet method is very cool, but a bit complex. I think an open rating system works fairly well, too. Especially if it is conducted over multiple rounds, by the third round, the top scorer is a fairly good reflection of overall popularity and desirability. I don't fully understand why this method would be any less effective than the Condorect method, though maybe it's not as fast.

[specsaregood]

it wouldnt be that bad to have a "tell it like it is" guy in there somewhere. Nothing I like more than a grumpy old man that takes no crap from anyone.

Ron Paul for President. Mike Gravel for his Press Secretary! That would lead to some interesting press briefings.

[MikeStanart]

They say you should research your canadite before you vote......


I don't know even 1/10th of the names...and i'm not spending that much time researching it....haha

at least not at this moment

[dseisner]

I like Sanford...but why is nobody here talking about Walter Williams? He's a economist and a libertarian and him being black could add a dimension to the campaign.

[Keith]

I like Sanford...but why is nobody here talking about Walter Williams? He's a economist and a libertarian and him being black could add a dimension to the campaign.

I like Walter Williams a lot. He is also pretty widely recognizable in Republican circles because of the guest hosting he has done on Rush Limbaugh.

[Nash]

I like Sanford...but why is nobody here talking about Walter Williams? He's a economist and a libertarian and him being black could add a dimension to the campaign.

Because he's never served in political office. At least that is my bias against him. Part of Ron Paul's appeal is his experience. He's served in congress for 20 years. If you get a guy like Williams or Stossel you run the risk of getting the experience card played against you in the debates. Right now Ron Paul is completely immune to that because he has more time in office than almost all of them.

[jorlowitz]

It's a big enough hurdle to get RP name recognition. If a VP is equally or even more anonymous, it will just drag down the campaign. That probably cuts the field of potential running-mates in half, but since I put the poll together I'll refrain from naming names (you know who they are, or aren't).

About 115 entries so far. I'll update results once I hit at least 200.

[SeanEdwards]

I want to see VP R. Lee Ermey do his drill instructor routine at the UN.

[Mesogen]

If Paul wins the nomination, his choice for VP will be critical to his winning the general election.

I think the best strategy would be to go with a well known person who does not have a checkered past.

I think it would be brilliant if he asked Wesley Clark to be his VP. I don't agree with Wes Clark on a lot, but so many Democrats would think long and hard on it and may end up voting for the ticket.

Of course the internationalist tendencies of Democrats make them seem unmatched with Paul, especially Kucinich, but Kucinich is Paul's friend. But, he would never "betray" his party like that.

Another totally brilliant choice would be Karen Kwiatowski. She would have all sorts of things going for her and would attract many people to vote for the ticket. A woman with military experience and she has a firm grasp of what's wrong in our present military and intelligence structures.

Ray McGovern is an interesting choice and I like him, but the Paul/McGovern ticket would easily be portrayed as the fruitcake/tin foil hat ticket.

Mark Scheuer is also an interesting choice. Expert on terrorism and Al Qeada. If Paul ended up going with an unknown person, then this would be his best bet.


So my picks would be:

1. Karen Kwiatowski
2. Mark Scheuer
3. Walter Williams

[Mesogen]

It's a big enough hurdle to get RP name recognition. If a VP is equally or even more anonymous, it will just drag down the campaign. That probably cuts the field of potential running-mates in half, but since I put the poll together I'll refrain from naming names (you know who they are, or aren't).

About 115 entries so far. I'll update results once I hit at least 200.

But by the time a VP is picked, Paul will have the nomination and name recognition will be absolutely no problem for him.

Also, any VP he picks will have bios run on them left and right.
I think it's best to have someone who has been in the military field, in intelligence, or someone that could possibly have mass appeal and crossover appeal.

[Bradley in DC]

If Paul wins the nomination, his choice for VP will be critical to his winning the general election.

I think the best strategy would be to go with a well known person who does not have a checkered past.

I think it would be brilliant if he asked Wesley Clark to be his VP. I don't agree with Wes Clark on a lot, but so many Democrats would think long and hard on it and may end up voting for the ticket.

Mark Scheuer is also an interesting choice. Expert on terrorism and Al Qeada. If Paul ended up going with an unknown person, then this would be his best bet.


So my picks would be:

1. Karen Kwiatowski
2. Mark Scheuer
3. Walter Williams

Wesley Clark, the war criminal bombing civilians in the Balkans?!

(MICHAEL Scheuer)

[BillyBeer]

Gary Johnson and Patrick Buchanan are the best choices on the list.

John Stossel always pops up but hes a no no because hes had too many problems with factual errors on 20/20. Just the other day there was a report in the LA Times about how he took a sermon by an LA preacher out of context and tried to say the Preacher had a helicopter and 25 room mansion when in fact the Preacher was just giving a hypothetical example.

[EvoPro]

There should be an option for "Whoever Ron Paul thinks is best" :)

[EvoPro]

Anyway, here's my list. If I had more time and universal knowledge some of these would likely be switched around.

http://s180.photobucket.com/albums/x311/evoP/VP3.jpg

I'd change my Mike Gravel to a 4.

[michaelwise]

Would Ron Paul ever go for universal health care if it were a constitutional amendment? I have a tendency to think Universal health care is in the interest of national security, and is of such vital importance that it should not be left to private interests to siphon off most of the profits. It would also garner the support of the universal health care advocates.

[EvoPro]

Would Ron Paul ever go for universal health care if it were a constitutional amendment? I have a tendency to think Universal health care is in the interest of national security, and is of such vital importance that it should not be left to private interests to siphon off most of the profits. It would also garner the support of the universal health care advocates.

No he would never. Check out my post here about it:

http://ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=86158#post86158

Others also have very good points in that thread.

[austin356]

Would Ron Paul ever go for universal health care if it were a constitutional amendment? I have a tendency to think Universal health care is in the interest of national security, and is of such vital importance that it should not be left to private interests to siphon off most of the profits. It would also garner the support of the universal health care advocates.



He has already advocated universal tax credits for individuals to buy their own insurance. He also absolutely hates the corporate profit siphoning interest in healthcare that I think is the largest problem with left libertarians/greens.

Liberals should look at it this way. Hillary is going to be the democratic nomination. She will push for universal coverage, but that universality will come with a price (in addition to the obvious tax increase). It will mean a complete and absolutely 100% corporate takeover of medicine.. Do we really want multinationals to have 100% control over the healthcare market?

Is having a tax credit in which someone can fund their HSA or buy full insurance really that harsh (speaking to liberals here)? Is having completely universal coverage really worth having universal corporatism in medicine with big government colluding with big corporations to rip off the taxpayers?

[Bradley in DC]

Would Ron Paul ever go for universal health care if it were a constitutional amendment? I have a tendency to think Universal health care is in the interest of national security, and is of such vital importance that it should not be left to private interests to siphon off most of the profits. It would also garner the support of the universal health care advocates.

Not a proper function of government the way we approach it, no.

[scrosnoe]

Would you consider adding Coburn to the list?

[LibertyOfOne]

Clint Eastwood

[jorlowitz]

This is Coburn on the war:


It is vitally important for us, when considering Iraq and the War on Terror, to remember who we are fighting and what is at stake. We have an obligation to future generations of Americans that we achieve victory in the War on Terror. The terrorists we are confronting today in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere would be on our doorstep if we retreat. It is better to confront and disrupt terrorists in far away lands rather than allowing them to once again launch attacks on us in our own cities.

Overall, the debate over troop levels in Iraq is not what matters — victory is what matters. ...

If we are committed to making the world safe from terrorism in the future, then packing up and leaving Iraq because we are unsatisfied today with our progress would be an unwise move....

We must remain mindful these individuals are determined to see our annihilation, and that their blustering and threatening must be taken seriously, not dismissed and pushed aside. It is clear leaving them alone will not appease them, as they have attacked us repeatedly. We ignore these threats at our own peril.

And on marriage:


In order to protect the traditional definition of marriage from being rewritten by judges I support a constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

I'm not saying other candidates don't disagree on issues with Paul, but these seem to be fairly major. Then again, others on the list have just as many. Still want him on it?

More at http://coburn.senate.gov/

[parocks]

The MSM dispatched Sanford. They'd like to do the same with Palin, and many here are willing to help.


Sanford and Palin are clearly the future of the liberty movement. They are also considered "mainstream" as far as liberty candidates go.

I don't think getting Palin is realistic now though. She is "inexperienced" and just started her term as governor. 2012 or 2016 is more realistic for her.

I love Bob Barr and Pat Buchanan but I think they are too polarizing, not in terms of their voting records but in terms of how people perceive them.

Jesse Ventura is all sorts of awesome and also not interested in politics. Maybe a Ron Paul primary win would change his mind.

Sanford would be ideal. He's credible. He's experienced. He's from the south but not considered "extreme" in the eyes of the media.

[RM918]

Is there a particular reason for the rampant thread necromancy?

[parocks]

Is there a particular reason for the rampant thread necromancy?

Yeah, I saw a few threads I really didn't like where Palin was nastily attacked. I though it was a bad strategy for us to engage in. I thought it would piss off Republicans we might need in 2012.

So, to try to prove one of my points, that many liked Palin back a couple years ago, I replied to the Palin section of a few old threads, so that people today could see what people here were saying about Palin 2 years ago.

There's a lot of Palin discussion on other threads.