what states should the dem target and who for vp?

[nomorelies]

From the recent gallup poll, what do people believe is the states that Kerry should target to turn around the lead? Missouri, Ohio and Pennslyvannia are pretty tight. is their a person who could win these states if their were picked to be vice-president? john mcCain, hillary clinton?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

McCain is a Republican. No matter how independent he is, a Republican will not be the VP nominee. And Hillary would be an utter disaster, she is far too polarzing and would add nothing to the ticket at all, luckily the only people dumb enough to think she will be on the ticket are right wing wackos who think their greatest fear will come true.

[angus]

Contrary to popular opinion, I think John Edwards would be a good choice.  He's a smooth talker.  An accomplished attorney with a gift for gab.  And he's a populist, which sells very well in flyover country.  His voting record is not too dissimilar to Kerry's, but it's image that matters, and his is one of homeboy made good.  Son of a millworker who worked his way through life to become a multimillionaire.  He may be perceived as more sportsman-friendly than Kerry or Dean (this is a completely inaccurate perception, but again, image is everything.)  

Their best shot is to make Bush out to be the elitist WASPy yankee yalie that he is.  A greedy amoral capitalist without gaff or shame.  Spoiled rich, and related to English royalty.  All true, but easy to forget.  It is their only shot.  Mind you, I abhore negative campaigning, on either side, but it seems to work.  

That said, you must realize that Kerry is a far easier target.  Hell, I voted to re-elect Kerry to the US senate, and after only a couple of ads even I see Kerry as an out-of-touch weakling, incompetent to be commander-in-chief.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Contrary to popular opinion, I think John Edwards would be a good choice.  He's a smooth talker.  An accomplished attorney with a gift for gab.  And he's a populist, which sells very well in flyover country.  His voting record is not too dissimilar to Kerry's, but it's image that matters, and his is one of homeboy made good.  Son of a millworker who worked his way through life to become a multimillionaire.  He may be perceived as more sportsman-friendly than Kerry or Dean (this is a completely inaccurate perception, but again, image is everything.)  

Their best shot is to make Bush out to be the elitist WASPy yankee yalie that he is.  A greedy amoral capitalist without gaff or shame.  Spoiled rich, and related to English royalty.  All true, but easy to forget.  It is their only shot.  Mind you, I abhore negative campaigning, on either side, but it seems to work.  

That said, you must realize that Kerry is a far easier target.  Hell, I voted to re-elect Kerry to the US senate, and after only a couple of ads even I see Kerry as an out-of-touch weakling, incompetent to be commander-in-chief.

How is this contrary to popular opinion?  Every survey shows Edwards as the preferred choice for VP by a mile.

[angus]

Contrary to popular Republican opinion, I should say.  I'm sure the GOP would rather see Hillary or Sharpton.

[Beet]

I still dont understand why they hate Hillary so much. All I know is, she proposed a national health care plan, she wrote a book, stayed with Bill after the scandals, said there was a right wing conspiracy against them, and she won a senate seat in a state she wasn't from. So big deal. Typical politician/wife stuff.

[angus]

I may not be the best one to answer, as I have no problem with her.  But I'll quote Chris Matthews:  "She's a girl."  The only one of the five most populous states ever to elect a female governor is Texas, which has elected two in its history.  Americans, according to Mr. Matthews, have no stomach for putting females in the executive position.  Legislative?  no problem.  Judicial?  no problem.  Executive?  no way.

Another problem is her surname:  Clinton.  She will forever be associated with her husband.  As my girlfriend says, "That's one crazy bitch.  I'd have divorced him long ago.  Anyone who can put up with that needs some head adjustment."  

As for the national health care plan, Clearly that was a thinly-veiled attempt to further his wife's political career at the expense of the credibility of socialized medicine.  Mind you, I'm no proponent thereof, but many US nationals are, and, to play devil's advocate, the time may have been right to do so.  So, while he had a vice president who had been a respected colleague of his fellow senators, and who had served on the appropriate committees to give him the knowledge to argue in favor of the plan, Bill Clinton overlooks Gore.  Gore would have been the obvious choice to argue for that plan in Congress, hands down.  That BC chose a woman the senate would find distasteful, at best, to argue for the plan shows that he had no intentions of realistically getting the plan through congress.  This also helps explain why Gore and Clinton had so little mutual respect.  Hindsight is 20/20:  it is clear to all observers now that he only wanted to further his wife's career by giving her exposure as a lawyer arguing in front of the senate.  

[lidaker]

I think it has to do with the fact that she's a strong woman. The republicans like traditional families where women are running things in the background. A first lady should stand beside her husband smiling quietly all the time, in their opinion. Seems to be an obvious answer, but is there a better one? This Hillary hatred is quite mysterious.

[Beet]

Those all seem like pretty poor reasons to hate her so much, except for the health care thing. And wouldn't that actually be a reason why progressives would dislike the Clintons... that they sacrificed the potential success of nationalized health care to further Hillary's career?  Also, considering how badly the plan failed, I guess that it probably would have failed even if Gore had presented it. There were quite a lot of powerful interest groups in Washington who opposed it, and a lot more conservative Democrats. And I doubt Clinton actually thought the decision to make Hillary prominent would be the decisive factor in the plan's passage... after all its not that much of a benefit to her career to argue a failed plan. But, I can't say I'm unhappy to be too young to remember the entire health care debate.

[Lunar]

States?  Well, the swings will be Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Maine, Florida, Iowa, Wisoconsin, New Mexico, Nevada, and Oregon.  They should be pumping money into many more though, such as Arizona, Nevada, etc.

As for the VIP, I strongly doubt Kerry's choose Edwards.  The reason why Edwards does well in polls is because he's already had some publicity.  Whoever Kerry chooses will get that same publicity so I consider that a null issue.

Kerry has to choose someone who will give him an edge in a key region, as well as having a complimentary personality.  I think Kerry would do best with a moderate Democrat from either the Southwest or Midwest, with NM Governor Richardson being unique since his mother was Mexican, giving Kerry a couple percent more in the Hispanic vote.  This'll be critical in the entire Southwest (Colorado to Nevada) and Florida.  

The other big choice to me is Evan Bayh, former governer and current senator to Indiana.  Moderate, experienced, and could carry a large sway through the Midwest, helping Kerry from West Virginia to Iowa and looking good everywhere else.

[minionofmidas]

I think it has to do with the fact that she's a strong woman. The republicans like traditional families where women are running things in the background. A first lady should stand beside her husband smiling quietly all the time, in their opinion. Seems to be an obvious answer, but is there a better one? This Hillary hatred is quite mysterious.

Well, Liddy Dole ain't that different from Hilalry in those respects.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

My Dem strategy plan.

2000 proved how closely the electorate was.  Al Gore's capaign team were total dumbasses.  They told him to ignore states like WV and NH to focus on the big prizes.  Those being Florida, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.  If his team had any sense, they would've realized PA and MI were fairly safe, both states he won by 5% even with the Nader factor.  He wasted time there.  He was better off taking some time out of PA and heading to WV to keep the Dem base, or ensuring NH would vote with the rest of the NE.  But no, they had to go after Florida and Ohio, waste time in states he won comfortably, and ignore the Southwest and its Dem trending population.  Had he picked up just one small state, he's president.  

I think Kerry should take a different approach this time around.  He should focus very hard on keeping Iowa, Minnesota, and New Mexico, all fairly small.  I don't care what anyone says....Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin all seem safe for the Dems.  I'd take a few stops in PA though, kinda like an insurance policy.  I really don't see it in the Bush column tho.

States to go after?  Arizona has a popular Democratic governor, and although Governors usually have little or no effect, it seems so tempting.  Ohio is KEY.  Bush loses Ohio and he loses the election.  Pick Edwards as your VP, and stick him there for the entire campaign.  Florida is also huge, Bush loses the election without Florida as well, and if you dont think the Dems are angry over the 2000 debacle ur wrong.  Give Virginia a look, but little more.  Nevada seems a little out of reach, but take a look.  For some reason, I see Louisiana as winnable.  It's not quite as "southern" as Mississippi or Alabama, and has a majority Catholic population.  Although I hate mending of religon and politics more than anything on this earth, if it can win Kerry it's 9 votes, I'm all for it.  

[nclib]

I think it has to do with the fact that she's a strong woman. The republicans like traditional families where women are running things in the background. A first lady should stand beside her husband smiling quietly all the time, in their opinion. Seems to be an obvious answer, but is there a better one? This Hillary hatred is quite mysterious.

Well, Liddy Dole ain't that different from Hilalry in those respects.

Despite her public office, Liddy Dole apparently reassures conservatives that she is a "traditional woman". Sadly, social conservatives only accept women leaders if they (female politicians) go out of their way to act traditional. The only reason Hillary is hated more than other liberal Senators is that sexist men see her as an "assertive, pushy woman". Sexists see Hillary as trying to occupy a man's role in society.

[Kghadial]

I think it has to do with the fact that she's a strong woman. The republicans like traditional families where women are running things in the background. A first lady should stand beside her husband smiling quietly all the time, in their opinion. Seems to be an obvious answer, but is there a better one? This Hillary hatred is quite mysterious.

Well, Liddy Dole ain't that different from Hilalry in those respects.

Despite her public office, Liddy Dole apparently reassures conservatives that she is a "traditional woman". Sadly, social conservatives only accept women leaders if they (female politicians) go out of their way to act traditional. The only reason Hillary is hated more than other liberal Senators is that sexist men see her as an "assertive, pushy woman". Sexists see Hillary as trying to occupy a man's role in society.

I remember asking my father when i was noticably younger why Republicans hated Hillary so much. His response  "because she is more of a man then they will ever be".  Many conservatives feel like less of a man when a woman is in power, and if there is anything hillary is about it's being powerful.  Mrs. Dole isn't so much about power, conservatives probably feel that Bob can control her, while every knows that hillary is independent.

[opebo]

I think it has to do with the fact that she's a strong woman. The republicans like traditional families where women are running things in the background. A first lady should stand beside her husband smiling quietly all the time, in their opinion. Seems to be an obvious answer, but is there a better one? This Hillary hatred is quite mysterious.

Well, Liddy Dole ain't that different from Hilalry in those respects.

Despite her public office, Liddy Dole apparently reassures conservatives that she is a "traditional woman". Sadly, social conservatives only accept women leaders if they (female politicians) go out of their way to act traditional. The only reason Hillary is hated more than other liberal Senators is that sexist men see her as an "assertive, pushy woman". Sexists see Hillary as trying to occupy a man's role in society.

No, its because she's far left.

[opebo]

Dems should focus on keeping PA, MN, IA, and WI, and try to take OH, WV, or FL.  NH and NM aren't worth bothering about.  I think everything else from 2000 is safe for Bush so they shouldn't waste their time.

[ian]

McCain is a Republican. No matter how independent he is, a Republican will not be the VP nominee. And Hillary would be an utter disaster, she is far too polarzing and would add nothing to the ticket at all, luckily the only people dumb enough to think she will be on the ticket are right wing wackos who think their greatest fear will come true.

My thoughts exactly.

[ian]

Dems should focus on keeping PA, MN, IA, and WI, and try to take OH, WV, or FL.  NH and NM aren't worth bothering about.  I think everything else from 2000 is safe for Bush so they shouldn't waste their time.

I agree with everything except for Iowa.  People are making such a big deal about Iowa, but the fact is that Iowa WILL be ours next election, and I'm willing to say, by about 5-10 points.  But, yes, PA, MN, and WI are the states we should be worried about.  OH, WV, and FL are what we need.  And, no, we don't need NH & NM, but I do believe that we should campaign hard to get them.  Every little bit counts.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I think we all know what the swong states are.  Among those, I don't think Kerry should target any in particular in either his VP pick or his ad spending strategy.  He should run a national campaign and hope the right states fall his way.

[opebo]

Dems should focus on keeping PA, MN, IA, and WI, and try to take OH, WV, or FL.  NH and NM aren't worth bothering about.  I think everything else from 2000 is safe for Bush so they shouldn't waste their time.

I agree with everything except for Iowa.  People are making such a big deal about Iowa, but the fact is that Iowa WILL be ours next election, and I'm willing to say, by about 5-10 points.  But, yes, PA, MN, and WI are the states we should be worried about.  OH, WV, and FL are what we need.  And, no, we don't need NH & NM, but I do believe that we should campaign hard to get them.  Every little bit counts.

Good point.  I just think the relative unimportance of NM makes Richardson a bad VP choice, because I think NV, AZ, and CO are all out of reach.  NH also has nothing to do with VP choice.  But sure if there's spare money, Dems should advertise/campaign in both.