I’m hearing a lot of pundits talk about how the best move for Kerry* is to pick Gephardt as his running mate. The operative issue is that Gephardt can supposedly deliver MO, OH, and WV (and possibly PA, although PA went for Gore last time anyway), giving the Dems a pretty sure bet on winning.
I’m pretty familiar with Gephardt’s politics (don’t like them), but I don’t know how good a vote getter he would be or if he’d be open to the VP slot.
What’s the thinking here about Gephardt as Kerry’s VP?
Anyone want to offer predicitions (and reasons for the predictions) for who the VP choice will be?
*Assuming he get’s the nod, which I think is a pretty safe bet.
Kerry is a New Englander. He needs a Southerner to balance the ticket if he hopes to pick up any electoral votes in the South. If I were him, my first choice would be Edwards; second Clark; third, retiring Florida Senator Bob Graham.
I like Gephardt for the reasons cited. If Kerry can get all the Gore states plus Ohio, Florida becomes a moot point. Take the west coast, the northeast, and the Great Lakes states (except of course Indiana), and the election is over. I don’t think having a southern VP choice will help get any electoral votes, save perhaps the state of the man concerned. Far better to solidify the rust belt than gamble on the South.
I think Kerry/Edwards would be a pretty strong ticket, but I think Kerry needs a running mate who is not also a member of congress. A Southern or Western Governor (or former governor) would be be the best. NM’s Bill Richardson comes to mind, esp with the Hispanic connection. That’s my prediction.
I’m inclined to agree. I don’t think Kerry can win any Southern states (no matter whom he picks for VP). He’d do better to pick someone from a big swing state like Ohio, Pennsylvania, or Missouri.
Not a bad point. The problem is that there aren’t many prominent Democrats from Pennsylvania, Ohio or Missouri who’d make good vice presidential candidates. All three states have two Republican senators, and while Pennsylvania’s Governor Ed Rendell and Missouri’s Governor Bob Holden are Democrats, I can’t see them having much appeal. I can’t think of any representatives from these states who would catch fire with anyone… except maybe Dick Gephardt?
I think Michigan’s Governor Jennifer Granholm has a definite future, but it’s a bit too early to consider her. Maybe Wisconsin’s Russ Feingold? Or Bob Graham? Florida’s a big swing state, and in matters of politics, it’s not really the South, anyway. How about Virginia’s Governor Mark Warner? I don’t know much about him, but it seems he’d be a good choice for logistical reasons, at least.
The Bill Richardson suggestion is demographically intriguing, but frankly, Richardson isn’t that compelling a pitchman. I kinda like it in a get-out-the-vote way, however.
VPs have traditionally been guys who get out the base. Cheerleaders for the cause, so to speak. Edwards would be a darn good choice, if he’d take it. He’s fundamentally a moderate, but speaks the populist language very well. Clark, I think, is out because he’s only been a Democrat for the last year and a half.
If only he were 35, an intriguing possibility would be Harold Ford, who made a late push for minority leader against Nancy “All the Reasons Why We Hate Democrats” Pelosi. Wonder what’s up with him lately?
Not unless there’s a constitutional amendment. Governor Granholm was born in Canada, according to her bio, so she’s not eligible to be nominated for either Veep or Prez.
I’ll second a recommendation for Harold Ford of Tennessee, but he may be a bit too young yet. If mobilizing the base is where it’s at, then I think it would be a bold move to choose James Clyburn of South Carolina. I spent some time looking for Democrat Governors and I didn’t see anyone who excited me.
I sincerely hope he will NOT pick Gephart. Everyone knows Gephart’s time has come and gone. He is not a viable candidate for Pres in another 8 years.
I do think that of all the present candidates, Edwards has the best shot. Like I said before, I think he’d be a good pick. I’m sticking with the Richardson pick, though, partly because I’ve often been surprised at VP choices in the past (seems like the obvious ones are seldom selected), and otherwise for the reasons I listed in the OP.
What would really be interesting is to see who GWB would pick if Cheney had to resign for “health” reasons…
Sorry for the hijack,but what is it about Indiana that seems a lost cause Dem win?
I know nothing about midwest attitudes or customs,but Indiana seems surrounded on the vote win map by Dem states.They have a top 25 or so metro area in Indianapolis,usually Dem strongholds in the north/east/west.
What’s missing?
This has always mystified me, too. Indiana hasn’t gone Democratic in a presidential election since 1964, when Johnson had one of those unusual landslides that don’t make for useful comparison with other elections. It seems to be the last Republican stronghold in the North, and it’s not going down easy. In fact, while the Democrats have had decent showings in Indiana sometimes, they’ve never gotten close at all to wresting it away from the Republicans.
A friend of mine from north-central Illinois told me she went to visit some relatives in Indiana, just northwest of Indianapolis. She said it was weird how there was such an overwhelming B-grade patriotism there, while her small town in Illinois tended toward a much less tacky display of patriotism, when it’s necessary, be you conservative or moderate or liberal. Despite its having a Democratic governor and a Democratic senator, Indiana retains a bland conservatism that it just can’t seem to shake.
As you point out, Titan2, the state has plenty of metropolitan areas, where Democrats typically do well. For some reason, Democrats don’t seem to even try to win in Indiana. Frankly, I think this fruit is overly ripe and ready for picking. I’ve been thinking that if the Democrats put some effort into winning Indiana during a presidential election, it could be theirs. I’m not sure why they seem to ignore it. Maybe it’s just a force of habit. However, with a Democratic senator and a Democratic governor up for reëlection this year, the state might get more attention from the Democratic Party and its presidential campaign than in previous years.
Another two states that I think are overly ready for the Democrats to concentrate on are Virginia and North Carolina. Who knows why things like this get overlooked? This does happen. The Gore campaign all but ignored Florida until the last five or six weeks of its campaign, having written the state off as solid Republican territory. Polls showed that Gore was doing extremely well there, despite having done hardly any campaigning, so they suddenly changed their strategy to concentrate on winning the state. If you count the thousands of voters who were turned away from the polls on Election Day that year, Gore won Florida handily, though closely. This is one state that I don’t think the Democrats will ignore again. And like I said: they’d do well to pay closer attention to Indiana, Virginia and North Carolina. These are richer veins of potential Democratic votes than lots of people seem to think.
How about an African-American? Just about every black person in the country would vote for that ticket (they tend to have a lower turnout, don’t they?) Now tthat’s a Southern strategy. He would have to be pretty centrist rather than a firebrand activist like Sharpton. I can’t think of any right now but they’re there.
I think Virginia is still going to take 2012 or so, even though Gore only lost it by less than 300,000 out of less than 3 million votes cast and Nader had pulled almost 2% … almost as many people voted Liberatarian as for Nader. Mainly as long as the Prez voting issues are are Defense, Tobacco and a highly energized Religious Right (home of Pat Buchanan, Pat Robinson and Jerry Falwell), in the end it is a tough place for the NatlDems … but I agree it is a place next decade that will likely be in play in the Prez elections, I just doubt seriously if Kerry/Warner could carry it this time around
To me that is the key – if Gephardt can switch Missouri’s column and doesn’t make the ticket weak elsewhere then I think that he should be Kerry’s choice. Same with Graham. Same with Edwards … that is in the reverse order that I think each VP canidate’s chance of carrying thier home state as a VP on the Prez ticket … Warner would follow Edwards
As mentioned elsewhere on the thread, here is some FYI on Ohio being winnable for the Dems, (it was lost by Gore)
Especially considering Warner has all of two years’ experience in elected office.
I know the “experience factor” is not as important a consideration for VP, but M. Warner (though long a political operative and actually a fairly credible candidate eight years ago against J. Warner) is ripe for attacks on inexperience.
Obviously Lieberman. First of all, because so many already voted for him 4 years ago. Second, once swing voters hear about Kerry’s Vietnam anti-war shenanigans, Kerry will, if nominated, be in enormous need of credibility in the war against terror, something most swing voters are basically for. Lieberman gives a little of that credibility.
I’m a Republican, so people will think I am insincere. But, personally, I think the Democrats are completely nuts here. Dean would be WAY more electable because he doesn’t have that terrible baggage of having called our troops rapists and thrown away medals. Current polls showing Kerry running a strong race against Bush are based on voters not knowing Kerry’s negatives yet. Dean’s negatives are now pretty much known. And in a general election campaign Dean could credibly say that he would be as tough on Al Quaeda as he is on Bush.
Edwards? Hard to say. I have no idea if people would vote for a malpractice lawyer. Personally, I hate 'em. A risky choice for either President or VP, but since it seems like a GOP year, why not take the risk. With Kerry there really is no risk – he’ll lose.
