I still say Edwards would be the best choice. He’s a Southerner; he’s already put his name out there and established his personal “son of a mill worker” image which might help counteract his inevitable trial-attorney image; he can’t be called a Washington insider; and he’s younger than Kerry, just as every veep, being our spare tire, should be younger than the president, Dick!
As for Edwards’ politics – don’t know much about them, but since during the debates he called Kerry on free-trade issues, I infer he’s at least a bit further to the left than Kerry on at least some issues. And the Democratic Party needs to sew up its left flank and make sure the people who spent this past season supporting Dean or Kucinich or Sharpton don’t get so frustrated that in November they go vote for Nader.
Dick Morris had an interesting theory today on one of the cable news channels (can’t remember which one… probably FOX). He’s holding out for Hillary. Reasoning: If Hillary is not on the ticket and Kerry wins, she will never become prez. Therefore, the Clintons will fight against his winning unless he agrees to put her on the ticket, which Kerry will be unwilling to chance.
Not that I buy this theory, but it did make me think a bit…
[QUOTE=astorian]
I’ll offer an opinion later, but first, I ask everyone here the same question George Will asked in his NEwsweek column a few weeks ago:
When’s the last time YOU based your vote on the Vice Presidential candidate?
Seriously, when’s the last time you were either undecided or leaning the other way, but voted for a ticket with a Veep you admired?
Let me play psychic… I’m guessing your answer is “never.” How’d I do?
So, if YOU aren’t influenced by the Veep candidate, what makes you think other people will be? Are you assuming other people just aren’t as smart as you? That YOU’D never vote for the other party just because the #2 guy is from your part of the country, but that Southerners are dumb enough to vote for John Kerry if he has a Southerner in the #2 spot?
[QUOTE]
Gotta disagree with you there, based on how you phrased the question. I doubt voters will pick a slate based on the VP, but I do think that the wrong name in the VP slot can certainly lose voters. And you’re forgetting the heavy baggage any candidate brings to the South if they’re nominated as a Democrat (look at this thread for a discussion on the South).
Remember that Clinton/Gore '96 won 5 states in the South; Gore/Lieberman 2000 won 0.
So yes, I’d say that the South is a vital battleground, not necessarily in the electoral college but more for simple credibility–a presidential campaign shouldn’t write off such a large portion of the country. (One wonders if GWB’s West Coast campaign managers should be listening.) And nominating a Southerner simply cannot hurt with the rest of the country, since Southern Dems all tend toward the moderate. I’d say the following are the three most likely VP candidates, in order:
And to feed the debate some more, here’s an American Prospect article with some names not heretofore mentioned in this thread, such as lapsed Republican Jim Jeffords, retired General Eric Shinseki, Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, and Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius.
Let me put it to you this way: I am engaged in a long-term internal debate with myself over whether or not to vote for Kerry this election. Who his picks for his Veep is VERY important to me and I am going to examine that choice very carefully. It could very well tip my decision one way or another. Not the answer you were expecting, but there it is.
Another day, another Hillary conspiracy theory… I guess at least nobody’s saying she’ll be the nominee because the party won’t be able to find a candidate.
Firstly I am impressed with the Republicans trying to get the whole inevitability thing going on. We’re running like we’re 10 points behind and they are running like they are 10 points ahead, when actually the reverse is true (ok he’s ahead by 8 points in some polls). They can talk up Prez Bush just like they talked up the economy! The true figure to look at is the favorable/unfavorable stats. Bush is pretty unfavorable, and considering how he has to be the most loved/hated prez since…well I don’t know when, he’s probably not going to gain much ground unless some serious stuff goes his way. But his only chance is to bring Kerry’s negs up.
About the VP. I think its true that nobody votes for the number 2 on the ticket. We are truely in an age of the VP having another function. For Bush, it negated his appearance of inexperience. I suspect that Edwards would be good for Kerry if played right. Edwards is VERY good at sticking it to Bush, but playing as Kerry’s man he’ll have to change that a little as his message worked against Kerry to some extent too. Edwards on the ticket wouldn’t really be so much to win NC or the south, but to strengthen the overall democratic message. Imagine having JRE (now in his much higher vice-presidential cantidate role) campaigning in the south for senate and congressional races. That would be helpful. Edwards has always had a very good message but never really got the respect that he deserved. With the respect of being chosen VP, Edwards will have a very good chance of getting his message out as well. His role isn’t really so much to strengthen the Presidential ticket but to strengthen the Democrats as a whole. The more high-profile democrats we have bashing Bush the better. Edwards has a nice high profle. Dean, still a little sour, probably, knows that his chance is gone and to do the best thing would be to go All-Kerry, All-the-time, after the convention.
Secondly, Edwards doesn’t have a job to go back to after the election. He probably won’t run for reelection to the Senate. He’ll be in a good position to run in 2008 if they lose, 2012, if Kerry wins the election and reelection. He’ll be about 58, then I believe. The Democratic party needs stars like John Edwards who is truely considered to be a great asset, who clearly came a little to early. Where else is he going to go? Gov of NC? I don’t know when the election is but that would certainly be a step down.
I say Edwards gets chosen for the future of the Democratic party and as a method to energise as many Democrats as possible while drawing independents. No electoral math other than JRE’s potential to attract independnts, although I think his main help will be to augment the Democratic cause, in general, rather than specifically help JFK.
Cleland or Richardson look like brasen power plays. How much Vietnam war do we need? Kerry in the number 1 slot is going to affect many more people than a Kerry/Cleland ticket. That’s overkill. Richardson looks like pandering to the latino vote. While most people won’t care or notice its still very uninspiring. Edwards should be chosen but used in a new way, more in the capacity of an party cheerleader and an anti-Bush cheerleader as well. JFK shouldn’t be afraid to let JRE overshadow him at times. He is obviously a more talented orator, but the negative effect of comparing JRE favorably to JFK is minimal on the ticket. Is someone really NOT going to vote for Kerry/Edwards because they like Edwards better?
O.K. We have all heard this story told time after time; Kerry is a liberal from MA and he needs to have a moderate southern VP otherwise he doesn’t stand a chance. Speaking generally, I tend to agree with that. But their is a women who was once governor of the great state of Texas no-one seems to have mentioned. Ann Richards would be a centerist Dem from Texas (who I concede did lose to Bush in her re-election campaign). I think this could undermine some of Bush’s support in the motherland of Texas. Tell me why this is not a genius idea.
“Moderate” Republican here (fiscal conservative, free-trader, social liberal). I will not be voting for Bush. Who’s on the Democratic ticket will determine if I vote Democratic or Libertarian. Kerry is acceptable by himself. If he picks Gephardt, I will not vote Democratic. Edwards, I’m not sure about, depending on how anti-NAFTA he really is. Other choices, I’ll have to wait and see.
Strategically, I think the Democrats need a moderate midwestern governor. Looking through bios at the NGA, I think Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius and Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich would be good choices. Both seem to have good records of preserving social spending while balancing budgets.
Sounds like you’ve reached the exact same conclusion I have, except I havent’ completely ruled out Bush yet. He’s got an uphill battle if he wants my vote, though. Of course, living in CA as I do, it’s unlikely that a vote for Bush is significant anyway.
Kerry should make some kind of feedback “referendum”, to crown the most popular choice. This has the extra advantage of moving away from the somewhat “unpopular” Democratic leadership, and emphasizes the unity. As well, such a “race” would keep them in the news, much better than artificial suspense over who, oh who, will he pick.
Most likely, that will turn out to be Edwards, which is good enough. Opie against Ernst Stavro Blofeld. Edwards will eat him alive when debating, and people might actually watch! Well, maybe.
This gesture to unity and populism will enhance Kerry’s image as the leader of a movement, rather than a mere candidate.
From Kerry’s latest campaign add, he might not need Gephardt on the ticket in order to lose my vote. Not sure I got the words exactly right, but close enough:
“John Kerry will crack down on companies exporting American jobs overseas.”
Now, if that’s just a platitude, devoid of substance, then it might be harmless. But if he starts putting forth policies to accomplish this goal, he ain’t getting my vote.
Could you expand on that? Do you mean that you’re trying to decide between Kerry and Bush, or between Kerry and Nader, or between Kerry and some other independent or third-party candidate? And what kind of person should Kerry pick as his running mate if he wants your vote?
So, who’s best? And who’s it gonna be? Let’s rejoin the discussion. Right now, the names bandied about seem to be down to Vilsack, Edwards, and Gephardt. McCain’s gone campaigning with Bush, Richardson’s explicitly withdrawn his name from consideration, Bob Graham seems to have quietly dropped off the short list, and while it never was going to be Zell Miller, you don’t nominate someone for veep who’s endorsed your opponent.
I’m pulling for Edwards, as I have been for months now. A few reasons:
I think Edwards is an exciting campaigner, and has articulated a very cogent case for voting Democratic on the basis of domestic issues. Best of all, it fits on a bumper sticker: “Two Americas”.
Dem Senate candidates in the Southeast (they’ve got about five open seats in the South) could use a little help from up-ticket, and Kerry won’t be that help. Edwards can go down to SC (for example), campaign for/with Inez Tenenbaum, and actually help her by doing so. If Kerry wants a Democratic Senate, Edwards can help him more than anyone else.
I think Kerry can win regardless of who he chooses as nominee, even if it’s Dick Gephardt (who is Yesterday with a capital Y). But he won’t have coattails unless he wins big. I’m for pulling out all the stops here: I want the Dems to get the biggest possible bang from the choice, whether that bang is 5% or 0.5%. Edwards does well among a number of independent and lukewarm Democrat demographics where Kerry doesn’t do so well, so he should be able to add significant support to the ticket. I really wouldn’t be surprised if Kerry/Edwards has a 2-3% advantage over Kerry/Vilsack, and a 3-4% advantage over Kerry/Gephardt, due to Gephardt’s negatives. The Dems have a slim chance of retaking the House, but it is going to depend on 2004 being a Democratic year, turning House districts where a Pubbie might normally get 56% of the vote into a dead heat.
Edwards makes a number of not-so-deep Southern states competitive in the Presidential horse race, especially VA and NC. Even if Kerry doesn’t win those states, making Bush spend money to hang onto them is still a Good Thing, strategically. Make 'em play defense as well as offense.
Gephardt’s a liability, and Vilsack’s a cipher, but what little I hear from Iowans is that they can’t see Vilsack being the veep choice.
One debate going on in blogland is over whether Kerry should make his choice based on personal comfort level with the nominee, or to maximize his chances of winning. I’m all about the latter: I think Gore picked Lieberman partly due to the comfort factor, and Lieberman helped him not a whit. Kennedy chose Johnson, who he wasn’t comfortable with, and Johnson brought Texas with him.
Although Edwards is probably the best and most likely choice, I’m still thinking Gephardt might be the guy-- just because of the states he could pull along with him. Edwards does’t buy Kerry much in terms of additional states, although he is a hell of a campaigner. I completely agree that Gephardt has the big “Y” attached to his name, but it’s only VP-- it’s not that critical anyway.
Supposedly, it’s between Edwards and Gephardt, although you hear Nunn’s name thrown around a bit.
And I don’t necessarily think Kerry has to choose between ideology and vote enhancers. There are plenty of qualified Dems out there that can do both well.
Don’t count Bush out yet. I’ve been saying for quite awhile that the Saddam trial oculd give him a big bump in the polls right up 'til the election, and I think we’re just seeing the beginning of that media spree right now.
N.B.: All my presidential predictions have the caveat of being down the drain if 1) The economy goes significantly south, 2) there is a big terror attack on US soil or 3) the Iraq situation gets markedly worse or better. Let’s take these as a given, and not keep repeating them with every post.
On the Republican ticket (I think he’s actually speaking at the Republican Convention).
I touted John Breaux last year (Jonathan Chance has me down on record for that). He has a long Senate career, is a moderate Democrat, and doesn’t have any ghosts (that I’m aware of).
Please, please, PLEASE let it be someone besides Gephardt. The man has the taint of the perennial candidate about him, plus he has no charisma that I’ve ever seen expressed.
