He wasn't a terrible pick...but he was the worst since 2008 - Tim Walz Discussion

[–] MCguy (1147) 23 days ago

What we knew about Edwards at the time was he had had made his fortune as an ambulance chaser. It was obvious he was a bad seed before the scandal. Kerry should have vetted him better. He got picked because he was handsome and charming. He was never a great pick.

Quayle had a distinguished record in the Senate and worked across party lines. Ted Kennedy defended him against the insults hurled at him. He was scandal free. He was prone to gaffs; I guess he was ahead of his time on that one. Good VP candidate? I'll go with probably not.

Stockdale was a vice admiral, so he was accomplished. What gets lost in history is that he was a stand-in for VP. He wasn't supposed to run or debate. He found out he had to debate a week or before and had no prep. Perot screwed him. Good VP candidate? No, but he wasn't supposed to be a candidate.

Harris was the worst. Walz and Palin are tied for second with Edwards bringing up the rear.

EDIT:

In order from worst to least worse:
Palin (dumbed down who could be VP)
Harris (result of dumbing down)
Walz (dumber than Harris or Palin)
Edwards (sleazy even for a politician)

reply

[–] KingBob (2175) 22 days ago

Palin wasn’t the problem with the ticket. McCain was a horrible candidate who was stupid enough to suspend his own campaign. Also there was no beating Obama that year.

reply

[–] ewd76 (1193) 17 days ago

Also there was no beating Obama that year.

That's the first thing to remember about the 2008 election.

reply

[–] KingBob (2175) 17 days ago

Yeah, as much as I can't stand Obama I have to hand it to him. He ran one of the greatest campaigns in US History and he did a tremendous job in making shit look like gold.

reply

[–] [deleted] 18 days ago

Palin wasn't a bad pick, although i don't think i would have gone with her...

But she actually brought some energy to one of the dullest, more boring campaigns in history.

I mean what is mccains presidential run famous for? some reagan or JFKesq speech? a great debate moment?! NO! it was for saying that obama was a "good man".

They picked palin, who had just had a baby with downs syndrome, a daughter who had also had a baby, they never prep'd her right, they just threw her to the lions.

Palin was one of the only positive things about that campaign, and they made her into a scapegoat.

reply

[–] Aylmer (446) 18 days ago

I had just moved away from Alaska at the time in 2008 and remember being baffled by the announcement that Sarah Palin, of all people, was named as his VP pick. She was not seen as anything more than a pretty face even among most Alaskans at the time. It did represent however the only memorable thing about his campaign, outside of Jon Stewart tearing him to shreds about saying the economy was strong.

Funny that we had a complete inversion of that whole formula with Biden in 2024 saying the economy was strong while his moronic VP tried to similarly gaslight us but also claim that she'll be even better than the last administration.

reply

[–] [deleted] 18 days ago

That campaign was over before it started, betweem 2001 and 2008 we had this whole anti war and anti american movement, with greenday songs, micheal moore documentaries and other stuff. the narrative was that america was sick of old men starting wars.

so what did the republicans do? they ran an old man who is only really famous for war! it was insane!

Like i said in my first sentence, i wouldn't have chosen palin. but i have sympathy for her because they brought her in, never prepared her in any sense for a campaign that was already dead and tried and to make her the scapegoat for a truly awful and bland john mccain.

the only time i saw any energy and anything during that campaign is when palin did some speeches and got out there. but the whole thing was a mess.

reply

[–] liscarkat (18431) 18 days ago

He was a terrible pick...a pathological liar and an idiot. Fortunately, he's gone for good.

reply

[–] AnthonySocksss (537) 18 days ago

Dems shoulda had him run as president. He really triggered the republitards with his weird comments 🤣

reply

[–] MCguy (1147) 18 days ago

So you wanted the Dems to lose? With Walz at top of the ticket Trump would have done even better.

reply

[–] AnthonySocksss (537) 17 days ago

Nah walz had an actual narrative and more crossover appeal than Kamala. But if dems really wanted to win they shoulda had Bernie run in 2016

reply

[–] ewd76 (1193) 17 days ago

I agree. Biden was horrible and Obama's lucky it didn't backfire.

reply

[–] Destinata (3344) 17 days ago

I forgot about Stockdale. "What am I doing here?"

The rule any more is that you have to have a VP that prevents being ousted by impeachment. He/she has to be worse than you are. So bad, in fact, that they'd never try to take you out with a serious impeachment. Oh, you can have "show" impeachments that they know wouldn't ever pass the Senate, but a REAL impeachment? You want to prevent those. Hence ol' Jazz Hands, Tampon Timmy.

reply