Kerry's VP

[Nym90]

Not true that we've only heard from the Dems, we heard from Bush in the State of the Union address. Also, the race for the nomination of the party out of power usually causes the front-runner to lose strength vs. the incumbent, not gain. Kerry has been under a lot of attack too.

Overall though, I'm pleased that the Dems have attacking Bush moreso than each other. They have been unusually civil towards each other for a party out of power.

[agcatter]

I would agree that they could go that direction  with a Richardson.  Whatever strategy they do  try, it's become more and more obvious that the South will not be a piece of their puzzle.

[Mort from NewYawk]

We can win in the south, but we need the midwest more.

Ifr the Dems lose WI, MN, and IA, they've lost the election. If they gain MO or OH, they've won.

Vilsack, Gephardt, Evans, Harkin, Bayh, Dayton, O'Bannon, Doyle or Durbin would all be good choices from this area, although some might disagree with some of them....

I agree with this assessment. It's all about the Midwest, precisely the states that hughento mentions. Given another draw in the popular vote (which would be a huge achievement for Kerry), a moderate Midwest VP, (especially from OH or MO) could get him over the top.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

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

[Gustaf]

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

Wasn't Pa Bush govenor of Texas? Rockefeller was an ex-governor of New York, but he was never a VP nominee, just VP.

[YRABNNRM]

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

Wasn't Pa Bush govenor of Texas? Rockefeller was an ex-governor of New York, but he was never a VP nominee, just VP.

Bush 41? Nah he was never Governor of Texas, he was a Congressman I believe.

[Gustaf]

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

Wasn't Pa Bush govenor of Texas? Rockefeller was an ex-governor of New York, but he was never a VP nominee, just VP.

Bush 41? Nah he was never Governor of Texas, he was a Congressman I believe.

Just a congressman? But I seem to recall something about it being such a long time since one of those was elected president.

[YRABNNRM]

http://www.americanpresidents.org/presidents/president.asp?PresidentNumber=40

[Peter]

Yeah, but Bush 41 didnt go direct from Congress to the Presidency, he went from the VP. If memory serves, the last person to go direct from the House to the White House was James Garfield (1881) and from the Senate was obviously JFK.  (1961)

[Gustaf]

Thanks, and I think what Pete's talking about is what I recalled. I checked it, and Bush served as a House member for 2 terms, 1966-1970, then gave up his seat to run for senate, but lost against Lloyd Bentsen in 1970, his 2nd loss in a Texas senate race. He then moved away to other things, before becoming VP in 1980.

[Gustaf]

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...

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

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

[Gustaf]

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?

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

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.

[Dave from Michigan]

What about Carl Levin as Kerry's VP

[Gustaf]

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.

Sorry, I misread your post. But since the Southern states weren't participating in 1864, did Lincoln really need a Southern VP? He still lost Tenessee, despite Johnson.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

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.

[Dave from Michigan]

Carl Levin would only make sure Michigan went Democrat so he's really not much help I don't think he will get it or even wants it it was just an Idea

[Gustaf]

Carl Levin would only make sure Michigan went Democrat so he's really not much help I don't think he will get it or even wants it it was just an Idea

Oh yeah, you're the Michigan guy...

[Dave from Michigan]

He is old too he'll most likey serve in the senate till he dies he's not going to lose.

[Nym90]

I agree that Levin won't lose. Also I agree that he's too old and doesn't add too much to the ticket, although he would ensure Michigan since he's quite popular here. But otherwise he doesn't really help Kerry a lot.

[Platypus]

So, whilst Edwards may eb winning the poll, the general concensus is a moderate Midwesterner like Bayh or Vilsack would be a good choice?

Both are good; Bayh is more prominent in Ohio, so would help more then Vilsack there, but Vilsack, as head of the Democratic Governors' Group or whatever it is called, is also fairly prominent. He would ensure Iowa and help more then Bayh in MN and MO.

Is there anyone from WI that could be considered?

[opebo]

So, whilst Edwards may eb winning the poll, the general concensus is a moderate Midwesterner like Bayh or Vilsack would be a good choice?

Both are good; Bayh is more prominent in Ohio, so would help more then Vilsack there, but Vilsack, as head of the Democratic Governors' Group or whatever it is called, is also fairly prominent. He would ensure Iowa and help more then Bayh in MN and MO.

Is there anyone from WI that could be considered?

I don't think many people in Missouri even know who this Vilsack is.

[© tweed]

Is there anyone from WI that could be considered?

Feingold, although is does nothing to push the ticket to the center.

[Mort from NewYawk]

As I posted in another thread, while it looked for awhile that Edwards was the shoo-in for VP, I now think that Gephardt looks like the best pick for Kerry. I think Gep's endorsement of Kerry yesterday is part of the staging of his pick as VP. For Gephardt, it makes sense. His dreams of Speaker are all washed up, why not try a shot at VP, maybe he'll get to the Presidency that way?

Gephardt is seen as a more serious politician than Edwards, he could be valuable in the key midwest and border South states - IA, WS, MN, MO, OH, MI, WV, and AK, spreading the Dem gospel about the loss of jobs, the health care mess, etc., and trying to bang out the union vote.