Kerry/Vilsack would have beaten Bush/Cheney

[MissCatholic]

John Kerrys selection of John Edwards instead of Vilsack ensured defeat. Had Kerry nominated Vilsack, then i think it is fair to say that Kerry would have won Iowa. But Kerrys problem in the last few weeks of his campaign was that he spent too much time in Wisconsin, Iowa, Pennslyvania and New Hampshire. Had Kerry nominated Vilsack, he would have gained ground in Wisconsin, Minnesota and Iowa. Kerry could then have spent more time in Ohio.

It is no surprise that on the last day of campaigning bush and Kerry both won the states that then were in; Kerry won Wisconsin bush won Ohio. Had Vilsack been on the ticket, Kerry would have a midwest Governor from a battleground state and he could have spent more time in Ohio.

The moment 2004 began it was all Ohio Ohio Ohio. Bush successfully kept Kerry out of Missouri by August and had only New Hampshire and Ohio to defend. Colorado and Nevada were surprises but Kerry made the mistake of thinking that a guy from Massachusetts colud win North Carolina with Edwards on the ticket.

[Max Power]

*cough*2008*cough*

[LINCOLN REPUBLICAN]

It's true, the selection of John Edwards by John Kerry was a mistake, and added nothing to the Democratic ticket except a nice smile.  If this was supposed to have been some sort of "southern straregy," it failed miserably, and was doomed from the start.

Dick Gephardt would have been a much better choice.  Tom Vilsack as well would have been a better choice.

Neither, however, would have swung the election to Kerry.  With Gephardt or Vilsack, the Democrats would most likely have won Iowa, giving them 258 EV, still short of the 270 needed.  It is very improbable that with either, even Gephardt, on the ticket, that Kerry would have won Missouri.

With Kerry being able to spend more time in Ohio, I doubt this would have resulted in Kerry winning the state.  It would have made it even closer, slightly, in Ohio, but Bush still wins Ohio, and the election.  Ohio has quite a history of voting Republican in presidential elections. 

It was John Kerry who was the problem with the Democratic ticket, not the VP nominee.  People do not vote for Vice President, they vote for President, the one at the top of the ticket.     

IMHO

[Frodo]

Selecting Tom Vilsack or Dick Gephardt (instead of John Edwards) would definitely have helped narrow the gap a little electorally -what would have helped even more is if Kerry had decided not to suddenly abandon West Virginia in the middle of the campaign. 

[MasterJedi]

Could have, Would have, Should have... DIDN'T.

^^^^^

[Reaganfan]

Could have, Would have, Should have... DIDN'T.

[© Tweed the Younger]

No ticket with Kerry at the top would have won.

[Vasall des Midas]

No ticket with Kerry at the top would have won.

Ahem. John Kerry / John McCain, John Kerry / Colin Powell, John Kerry / Laura Bush ... want me to continue?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I doubt it would have made much difference.

[Rococo4]

Yeah - hopefully these two give it a whirl in 2008.  I don't think they would have won in 2004. Maybe they would have taken Iowa, yeah.  I don't think it would have made a difference in WI or MN - not enough to keep Bush out of there and allow and not defend other states.  I agree Edwards was an awful pick, but short of McCain, I don't know if the results would have been different regardless of who he picked.

Edwards was so weak that unless his home state was Iowa, New Mexico, or NH (a state decided by a very close margin) he wouldnt have made a difference no matter where he was from.  The guy at the top of the Dem ticket wasn;t all that great either.

Kerry did a good job for himself staying in the public eye post election, but I have heard much from him lately.

[Harry]

was there a long-time representative from Ohio that he could've chosen?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

was there a long-time representative from Ohio that he could've chosen?

Brown?

[Platypus]

was there a long-time representative from Ohio that he could've chosen?

Kucinich

[Pictor Ignotus]

Strickland, way way before Kucinich

[Vasall des Midas]

Strickland might've helped in WVa, too...

[Nym90]

Kerry would have won Iowa if he had chosen Vilsack, or New Mexico if he had picked Richardson, but those are the only states in which a VP nominee would have likely made any difference. Possibly also Reid in Nevada.

Maybe taking Graham could have won Florida for Kerry and thus the election, but I don't think he would have made enough of a difference in Florida. I don't think Gephardt could have won Missouri for Kerry.

Unfortunately there was no one from Ohio who was experienced enough to make a good VP (John Glenn was too old); neither Strickland nor Brown would have been ready for prime time.

[adam]

I personally think Kerry was more of a problem than Edwards. It wasn't Edwards's fault that Kerry couldn't make up his mind on the war, it wasn't Edward's fault that Kerry had huge descrepencies and flip-flops within his Senate record, and it isn't Edwards's fault that the Democratic party hasn't yet learned that New England senators make for terrible presidential candidates.

I for one think the ticket could have been far better had it been backwards with Edwards on top and Kerry as the VP. I know a lot of people that said they liked Edwards, but not enough to vote for Kerry.

[Nym90]

I personally think Kerry was more of a problem than Edwards. It wasn't Edwards's fault that Kerry couldn't make up his mind on the war, it wasn't Edward's fault that Kerry had huge descrepencies and flip-flops within his Senate record, and it isn't Edwards's fault that the Democratic party hasn't yet learned that New England senators make for terrible presidential candidates.

I for one think the ticket could have been far better had it been backwards with Edwards on top and Kerry as the VP. I know a lot of people that said they liked Edwards, but not enough to vote for Kerry.

Yes, I think that an Edwards/Kerry ticket would have beaten Bush/Cheney. Edwards would have been able to win Ohio, I believe, and perhaps also some other swing states.

[Reignman]

It was John Kerry who was the problem with the Democratic ticket, not the VP nominee.

[True Democrat]

Something like this maybe (Kerry would have lost among Hispanics - Vilsack supports an English only law):



So basically barely any change.

[Harry]

what if Kerry had picked Mark Warner?

[adam]

what if Kerry had picked Mark Warner?

A southern Democrat with little name recognition and mild charisma. In other words, he would have had about the same effect that Edwards had...which was no effect at all.

[Mr. Paleoconservative]

what if Kerry had picked Mark Warner?

A southern Democrat with little name recognition and mild charisma. In other words, he would have had about the same effect that Edwards had...which was no effect at all.

MINUS the charisma.

[adam]

what if Kerry had picked Mark Warner?

A southern Democrat with little name recognition and mild charisma. In other words, he would have had about the same effect that Edwards had...which was no effect at all.

MINUS the charisma.

Warner has that suddle, down home kind of charisma...as opposed to Edwards who's charisma appears to have been stolen from "Politicians-R-US".

[J. J.]

Selecting Tom Vilsack or Dick Gephardt (instead of John Edwards) would definitely have helped narrow the gap a little electorally -what would have helped even more is if Kerry had decided not to suddenly abandon West Virginia in the middle of the campaign. 

First, at the time, I said Kerry should have done two things:  A. Abandon FL;  B. Fight in WV.

Gephardt would have probably been the better candidate.  He would have had fairly strong appeal in WV, IA, and OH.  MO is also a possibility.  Gephardt probably would have helped in PA, which was reasonably close, but Kerry would not have had to expend as much resources here to win.  A combination of not contesting FL and Gephardt on the ticket could have been a winning combination.

Kerry made a number of strategic errors in the campaign and one of those is named John Edwards.