Edwards needs to win Georgia to stay in the race for another week; if he doesn't win there, he would lose every state on March 9th, and that would just be embarassing.  

In order to actually be a serious contender (sweep March 9th, make Illinois a toss-up), Edwards has to win three.  Two would be Georgia and Ohio.  The third would be Minnesota, Maryland, or possibly New York (doubtful after the NY Times endorsement of Kerry).  Edwards could then claim an even split of the non-New England states.

landrieu is much too conservative to be placed on the ticket with kerry.

the liberal base of the democratic party would throw a fit if she were chosen

Well, Breaux is more conservative than Landrieu by just about every measure. (National Journal ratings, ADA/ACU scores, etc.)

And the liberal base wants to beat Bush badly enough that they wouldn't "throw a fit" unless the VP nominee was fundamentally pro-life.

Kucinich 100%
Sharpton 92%
Dean 83%
Kerry 83%
Edwards 80%
Bush 13%

Clearly it gives your top candidate 100% and makes everyone else a fraction of that.

Interesting that a number of Edwards supporters on this board are ending up with him fairly low on their lists.  I think Kerry ended up slightly higher on mine because I'm more pro-gay rights than Edwards.  But they don't seem to list some of the issues where Edwards is more progressive, like increasing the capital gains tax.

 
If Breaux where is running mate maybe...but it would be unlikely Breaux's big asset would be appeal to moderate and rightward leaning independents (who Edwards would also appeal to but probably more so to the moderates than the rightward leaners) and Breaux on the ticket would pretty much assure the Dems of holding his old Senate seat while his presence might help across the south... and it might well help balance Kerry out... but I don’t no if he's the best choice... but back to the question only if Breaux is Kerry's running mate and then its still more likely that Bush would win it...  

Wouldn't Landrieu be a better running mate for carrying LA than Breaux?  Breaux is just another Washington insider who has been in the Senate forever.  

I think Kerry has a better chance in LA than any other Southern state...it is Catholic and had been trending Dem.  But I'm pretty much alone in that belief.

Actually, I'll correct myself.  Breaux would be better than Landrieu for the sole purpose of carrying Louisiana.  Landrieu would be better nationwide.

 
If Breaux where is running mate maybe...but it would be unlikely Breaux's big asset would be appeal to moderate and rightward leaning independents (who Edwards would also appeal to but probably more so to the moderates than the rightward leaners) and Breaux on the ticket would pretty much assure the Dems of holding his old Senate seat while his presence might help across the south... and it might well help balance Kerry out... but I don’t no if he's the best choice... but back to the question only if Breaux is Kerry's running mate and then its still more likely that Bush would win it...  

Wouldn't Landrieu be a better running mate for carrying LA than Breaux?  Breaux is just another Washington insider who has been in the Senate forever.  

I think Kerry has a better chance in LA than any other Southern state...it is Catholic and had been trending Dem.  But I'm pretty much alone in that belief.

With quite a few more but I'm not sure how many reporting from Idaho caucus:

Kerry: 70%
Edwards: 21%
Dean: 9%

like 927 votes counted in those totals

I think those aren't votes, they are delegates to the state dem convention.  At leasts that's how they count the results in most caucuses.

Btw, Mr Fresh, which state do you consider more conservative, Idaho or Utah? I used to think Utah but now I'm not so sure.

I'm not closely acquainted with either state, but I would vote for Idaho.  At least PART of Utah sometimes votes for Dems (Jim Matheson and Rocky Anderson in SLC).  

Has a single Democrat won a statewide or congressional election in Idaho in the last ten years?  (Maybe, but I can't remember one).  

On the other hand, Gore lost Utah by 41%, but came withing 39% of pulling off a win in Idaho. :-P
 

These are all plusses for Edwards, but it will come down to whether he can make a big splash in the debates, and get some big newspaper endorsements. (Has NY Times endorsed?)

A Dean endoresement would also be nice, but a long shot.

Kerry will win big in all three states tomorrow, something like 60 to 30.  See Nevada, but give all of Dean's voters to Edwards.

I think the only Southern State that Kerry could carry (especially without Edwards) is Louisiana.   It had been trending Democratic (recent House, Senate and Gov wins), and unlike the rest of the South, is predominantly  Catholic.  I haven't seen any recent polls, though.

IMHO, Edwards should continue if he can get at least 30% in WI today.

On March 2nd, he needs a win somewhere outside of the South.  My pick would definitely be Ohio, where his focus on jobs should play really well.  If he can pull this off, plus a win in Georgia and strong 2nd in NY & CA, he can sweep March 9th.  

I think this would put the race dead even going into one final big primary the next week in Illinois, which would decide the nominee.

Nick

So maybe a more interesting question is: Who will be a contender for a major party nomination in 2012 who is NOT currently a Governor or Senator?

My guesses on the Dem side:
Emanual (IL)
Herseth (SD)
Spitzer (NY)

Not sure about GOP.

One more Dem I forgot:
O'Malley (MD)...then in the middle of his second term as Gov!

2012

Dole/Owens (R) - 56%, 326 EVs
Clinton/Warner (D) - 43% 212 EVs

Elizabeth Dole will be 76 in 2012!  It strikes me that most people who are projecting the race into 2012 are picking candidates who are influential NOW, not who will be influential in eight years.

Consider this: Eight years ago, it would not have been a stretch to imagine John Kerry as the Dem nominee.  But his chief opponents were Edwards, Dean, and Clark.  Who could have guessed in 1996 that any of those three would be contenders in 2004?   Most of the 2012 candidates will be people who do not currently have national recognition.

So maybe a more interesting question is: Who will be a contender for a major party nomination in 2012 who is NOT currently a Governor or Senator?

My guesses on the Dem side:
Emanual (IL)
Herseth (SD)
Spitzer (NY)

Not sure about GOP.

I don't have a prediction for 2008, but how about this one:

In 2016, the Dem nominee will be Stephanie Herseth.


BTW, I think McCain at 68 will probably be too old to run in 2008, especially considering his previous health problems.  Also, I'm surprised no one has mentioned Ed Rendell as a Dem candidate.

How about this one:

Kerry 55
Edwards 10
Dean 10
Others 5
Undecided 20

OK, I made that up, but does anyone expect anything different?

Nick

Of course Dems will rally behind Kerry when and if he is nominee.  But why is there any need to do so right now?  The whole reason that Kerry has won so many states already is that (IMHO) Dems were looking too quickly to rally behind the first candidate to show some electoral strength.

Shouldn't we allow at least a couple weeks of a one-on-one campaign between Kerry and Edwards going into Super Tuesday?  There haven't even been any real debates yet (with less than six candidates).  Sure, it looks EXTREMELY likely that Kerry will be the nominee, but shouldn't he have to prove himself in a one-on-one race before we crown him?

Nick

My understanding is that a candidate needs 15% in a state to get delegates in a Democratic primary.  Once he reaches that threshold, delegates are awarded proportionally.  But looking at the latest round of primaries, I have two questions.

1.) Only Kerry got 15% in Delaware, yet Sharpton, who finished 6th, apparently got a delegate.  How?

2.) In the recent Missouri Primary, Kerry more than doubled Edwards, but only got 36 delegates compared to 26 for Edwards.  This hardly seems proportional.

Can anyone explain exactly how these delegates are apportioned?

Nick

What about Carl Levin as Kerry's VP

Does Carl Levin give Kerry anything other than geography?  He's 70 years old, and has had a pretty quiet Senate career.

Talking about Bentsen, could Edwards be the Bentsen of 2004? 1988 featured a Northeastern liberal with a Southern moderate running against a Bush. And Bentsen doesn't seem to have helped Dukakis a lot...

I don't think choosing a VP based on region works very well (well, maybe for Lincoln in 1864).  It's usually better to choose a VP who will add personal qualities that the Pres candidate lacks.   For this reason, I would see Edwards as a MUCH better pick than, for instance, Graham or Gephardt.

Nick

Why, did Lincoln really need to ensure Maine?

1864, not 1860.
Lincoln chose Andrew Johnson, who was from Tennessee and not even a Republican.
I believe Tennesse was reintroduced into the Union years before any other confederate state.

Talking about Bentsen, could Edwards be the Bentsen of 2004? 1988 featured a Northeastern liberal with a Southern moderate running against a Bush. And Bentsen doesn't seem to have helped Dukakis a lot...

I don't think choosing a VP based on region works very well (well, maybe for Lincoln in 1864).  It's usually better to choose a VP who will add personal qualities that the Pres candidate lacks.   For this reason, I would see Edwards as a MUCH better pick than, for instance, Graham or Gephardt.

Nick

One interesting thing to note is that candidates from both parties almost never choose Governors as running mates, even thought they are always cited as possibilities.  I think the last VP nominee who was a Gov was Spiro Agnew!

Nick

Here is an interesting map showing which states lean which way:

A most interesting view.

Separating the states into groups by voting patterns in last 4 cycles connects to our discussions here:

GRAY: unalterably Republican - disaster would have to strike for Bush to lose one of these

BLUE and TURQOISE: voted for Clinton once.
If they went against Dole in 96 we're calling them borderline in 2004 (FL, AZ).
If they went against GHW Bush in 92 we're calling them safe GOP (MT, CO, GA).

RED: all the southern states that the Dems are hoping an Edwards or Clark can win, plus NV, OH, and NH. I'd call these the conservative swing states, i.e., they swing between parties, but haven't voted for a perceived liberal. They went against Dukakis, for Clinton twice, against Gore.

WHITE: perhaps the most interesting is that of these 9 states, which voted Dem down the line, 5 (WA, OR, MN, WI, and IA) are considered up for grabs this time. That trend is not good news for the Democrats.

Democrats: You need some conservative Clinton RED and BLUE states. Not only are the YELLOW and WHITE (Gore) states not enough, but they're  in contention!

Factoring 1988 into the equation doesn't tell us anything important, the trends have shifted too much.  I think Dukakis lost South Dakota by only 6 points, but lost New Jersey by 14!

I think the map does break the states into three meaningful groups though:

1.) WHITE/YELLOW : Gore states.  Some are safe, some are swing, but the white state are more in danger than the yellow, if anything.  If GOP picks up even a couple of these, they've clinched it.

2.) RED/GREEN/TURQUOISE : Switched to GOP in 2000.  These are the states the Dems have to target if they want to win in 2004.  Like the above group, they only have to pick of a couple.

3.) BLUE/GREY : Safe GOP.  I don't see the Dems seriously competing in any of these.

Nick

My Prediction:

Kerry - 33%
Dean - 27%
Edwards - 19%
Clark - 12%
Lieberman - 8%
Kucinich - 1%

Nick

Dean too high there.

Maybe, but I'm anticipating somewhat of a Dean comeback.

Or maybe I'm just hoping for one.  I think only a strong Dean showing will prevent a Kerry blowout (which would start the press crowning him as the inevitable nominee).

Nick

My Prediction:

Kerry - 33%
Dean - 27%
Edwards - 19%
Clark - 12%
Lieberman - 8%
Kucinich - 1%

Nick

New Poll!

From ARG
Jan 23-25

Kerry 24
Clark 21
Edwards 15
Dean 10
Lieberman 7
Undecided 23

Nick

New Poll!

From ARG
Jan 23-25

Edwards 21
Kerry 17
Sharpton 15
Clark 14
Dean 9
Lieberman 5
Undecided 18

http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/sc/