Talk Elections

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.

*cough*2008*cough*

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

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. 

^^^^^

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?

I doubt it would have made much difference.

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.

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

Brown?

Kucinich

Strickland, way way before Kucinich

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

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.

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.

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

()

So basically barely any change.

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".

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.

Exactly. I really think the VP role tends to be slightly overrated in Presidential elections. If people really paid attention to running mates, Dukakis or Dole probably would have picked up more votes than they did.

That's largely true, but VP picks can have some influence.

I think Bush might have been better off politically had he dumped Cheney in 2004.  Cheney was picked because of his gravitas and perceived competence in 2000, something that Bush was seen as needing due to his reputation as a bit of a lightweight, with no foreign policy experience.

In terms of traditional politics, Cheney was a zero politically.  He was from a 3-electoral-vote state that always votes Republican.  He did more to solidify the base than bring in new voters.

Rightly or not, Cheney has become a liability politically, but as VP, he can't be dumped.  I always thought he was more suited to appointed office than elected office.

As far as Kerry goes, he was the primary problem.  It's so hard for me to respect a man who was calling for action against Iraq since 1997, loudly proclaiming the need to rid them of their WMDs, who then instantly caves in to the moveon.org people less than a year into the war and starts peddling the notion that the Bush administration caused the whole thing.

With leadership like that, we could never hope to accomplish anything positive.  Kerry is fundamentally a very weak man, an enough voters perceived that to vote against him.

However, he did make a basic choice, in picking Edwards, that he would attempt to crack the south.  He failed at that, and in retrospect, he would have had a better chance in doing better in the midwest, so a midwesterner would probably have been a better pick for VP.  Edwards got him a big goose egg.

To those who believe that Edwards would have done better than Kerry as head of the ticket, this is the reason why he would not have.  Kerry was a military man and a long-time Senator.  He lost the security vote.  Edwards was a former trial lawyer and a one-term Senator who spoke of "two Americas."  Edwards would have been soundly defeated.

Welcome to the forums, Joel.

I have to agree with both you and with Dazzleman.

Kerry lost on his own accord, nothing to do with Edwards.  The so called "southern strategy" ploy by Kerry was a miserable failure.  Edwards brought nothing to the ticket.

It would not matter who Kerry's running mate was, it would not result in a Kerry win.  Putting Graham on the ticket would not reverse a Bush margin of 381,000 votes in Florida. 

Edwards as the nominee would have resulted in a bigger defeat for the Democrats.  Add possibly New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin to the Bush totals.   

There was no serious attempt at a "southern strategy" anyhow. It was just spin.