Is edwards the best VP?

[© tweed]

FOX Opinion Dynamics Poll

Kerry/Edwards 45%
Bush/Cheney 45%

Kerry/Richardson 41%
Bush/Cheney 46%

Kerry/Clinton 42%
Bush/Cheney 47%

Another thing; why is the media so fixated on Hillary?  Kerry isn't going to pick her.

[agcatter]

Because the liberal media loves her - they always will.  And you're right.  Kerry would never pick her.  His first appointment would have to be a food taster.

[ncjake]

I hope he picks hillary. The democrats are suicidal. First, they pick a damn flip floppin ultra liberal yankee as thier candidate, now they are actually considering putting Hillary on thier ticket! They loaded thier gun when they let Edwards lose, now they are going to pull the trigger.

Good

[agcatter]

We could only hope Kerry would pick Hillary.  That would be sweet - but it's not going to happen.  She's a polarizing figure the Dem nominee doesn't need.  Obviously I'm not privy to polling done by the Kerry people, but I'd be surprised if Hillary polled well as VP.

As for Edwards, he's coming off a real run of name recognition and positive press.  That makes his numbers look better I think.  However, he wouldn't bring a single state from the South (and that includes NC) into the fold as Kerry is absolutely dead in the South.  I think Kerry will go with Gephart to compete better in the Midwest.  Losing the entire South means Dems have to do well in states like Ohio.  Without those states, they are finished.

[Demrepdan]

I hope he picks hillary. The democrats are suicidal. First, they pick a damn flip floppin ultra liberal yankee as thier candidate, now they are actually considering putting Hillary on thier ticket! They loaded thier gun when they let Edwards lose, now they are going to pull the trigger.

Good

The Hillary as VP thing is old news. There is no way in hell Hillary will be on the ticket as VP....and there is no way in hell she will win in 2008 as you Republicans so despeartely want. The Dems don't like her.....most think she's a bitch....and most others are just tired of the Clintons or both......so your wish of having Hillary on the Democratic Ticket for President or VP anytime in the future...is nothing more than a wish my friend. This will NOT happen....just wait and see.....

[opebo]

As has been said above, Edwards is only polling well as a running mate because of name recognition.  Its hard to say if he'd to better nine months from now than others.  

As for Gephart, I hope they do pick him - it would be a joy to see Missouri repudiate that union shill with a Bush victory.  Not an unlikely outcome given that a large majority of Missourians outside his House district dislike him.  What a has-been - if Kerry's stuck in the 1960's, Geppy's stuck in the 1950's!

[Platypus]

Don't laugh, but Tom Vilsack, our Gov., would be a good choice. Young, moderate, smart, semi-handsome (better then Kerry, anyway) and from the midwest. he'd carry Iowa, help keep Wisconsin and Minnesota, and his support amount workers and unions is massive here, so that would help in heavy manufactoring states like Ohio and Michigan also.

[Ben.]

Surprisingly I agree with opedbo... Gephardt would no way swing MO for the Dems, he could boost Kerry in WV perhaps but then again i think the dems will make gains there thanks to economic issues regardless of the VP the same can be said of Ohio as well...

Gephardt in my view along with Vilsack and Hillary is perhaps one of the worst potential VPs for Kerry… Kerry needs a moderate (Gephardt is about as leftwing as you can get while remaining in the main stream, his policies have a hell of a lot in common with Mondale and we all know where those got the Dems last time), Kerry also needs someone with a little flare who can be a bench mark for the future as his running mate, it has been suggested that Kerry should not have a southern running mate as the Dems don’t have a shot in the south there are two reasons why this argument is phoney 1.) The Dem ticket needs to help rather than hinder senatorial and congressional candidates across the south, 2.) A VP will not necessarily only boost the candidate at the top of the ticket in the region in which they hail from, Edwards would boost Kerry in the Midwest and rust belt far more than he would boost Kerry in the south IMHO (in my view Edwards comes across a lot like a more plausible moderate version of Gephardt policy wise)…. Kerry best choices for VP are Bill Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Mark Warner, Evan Bayh, Bob Graham and Phil Bredesen…

If Kerry is smart (and get the sense he is very smart) Gephardt, Hillary and Vilsack will not get more than a glance… he’ll pick a moderate who has broad national appeal amongst moderates and conservative democrats…      

[agcatter]

The only conservative Democrats left reside in the South and there is no way in hell John Kerry will win a single state in the South.  No Southerner on the ticket will make the South swallow John Kerry.

[© tweed]

The only conservative Democrats left reside in the South and there is no way in hell John Kerry will win a single state in the South.  No Southerner on the ticket will make the South swallow John Kerry.

Florida is different than the rest of the south, so, Graham or Nelson would be good selections.

[agcatter]

Florida IS somewhat different.  Graham is not the answer there however.  His rhettoric during his presidential run hurt him badly there.  Nelson perhaps could give Kerry an outside chance there but I doubt it.  Plus Nelson would add nothing in in Midwest or any other part of the country.  That would be a Florida or nothing strategy.  We will see if Kerry wants to pick Florida as the place he wants to roll the dice.

[HoopsCubs]

Surprisingly I agree with opedbo... Gephardt would no way swing MO for the Dems, he could boost Kerry in WV perhaps but then again i think the dems will make gains there thanks to economic issues regardless of the VP the same can be said of Ohio as well...

Gephardt in my view along with Vilsack and Hillary is perhaps one of the worst potential VPs for Kerry… Kerry needs a moderate (Gephardt is about as leftwing as you can get while remaining in the main stream, his policies have a hell of a lot in common with Mondale and we all know where those got the Dems last time), Kerry also needs someone with a little flare who can be a bench mark for the future as his running mate, it has been suggested that Kerry should not have a southern running mate as the Dems don’t have a shot in the south there are two reasons why this argument is phoney 1.) The Dem ticket needs to help rather than hinder senatorial and congressional candidates across the south, 2.) A VP will not necessarily only boost the candidate at the top of the ticket in the region in which they hail from, Edwards would boost Kerry in the Midwest and rust belt far more than he would boost Kerry in the south IMHO (in my view Edwards comes across a lot like a more plausible moderate version of Gephardt policy wise)…. Kerry best choices for VP are Bill Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Mark Warner, Evan Bayh, Bob Graham and Phil Bredesen…

If Kerry is smart (and get the sense he is very smart) Gephardt, Hillary and Vilsack will not get more than a glance… he’ll pick a moderate who has broad national appeal amongst moderates and conservative democrats…      

We've discussed this somewhat in another thread.  Kerry has to be very, very confident that Nelson or Graham can win Florida in order to pick them.  I'm not a big fan of Bayh as a running mate.  As popular as he is in his state, I don't think he can win Indiana for Kerry even under the best circumstances.  Bredesen lacks a lot of charisma - I've heard him speak a couple of times - not bad, not great.   Vilsack helps Kerry hang on to Iowa, but not much else.  
Landrieu will do very little in LA.

Kerry has to find the runing mate that will give him multi-state appeal in places like West Virginia, Ohio, Arizona and Nevada.  Warner of Richardson I think.   I still have doubts about Edwards.  I would have felt better about Edwards if he had done better in Ohio and Georgia.


Hoops

[Bandit3 the Worker]

why is the media so fixated on Hillary?

Why? Because the media views her as the best Democrat they could possibly hope for. Hillary is well to the right of someone like Kerry.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Edward did extremely well in the Midwest among voters that Kerry needs to win in November: Independents and moderate Republicans.   He didn't do well among African-Americans or hardcore Dems, but Kerry won't lose any of those votes by picking Edwards.

On the other hand, if Kerry picks a really centrist running mate like Evan Bayh, he may very well lose the votes of progressives to Nader.  I for one, will NOT vote for someone who favored Bush's tax cuts, as Bayh did.

I also think Warner or Landrieu would be OK picks.   Gephardt and Graham would be very bad...they really hurt their national reputations in their presidential campaign.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

On the other hand, if Kerry picks a really centrist running mate like Evan Bayh, he may very well lose the votes of progressives to Nader.  I for one, will NOT vote for someone who favored Bush's tax cuts, as Bayh did.

Yeah I know. That's what I've been telling everybody all along, and nobody else seems to grasp this.

Since Kerry himself isn't all that liberal on economic issues, he almost has to pick someone like Kucinich to balance the ticket and to avoid alienating liberal voters.

[Gustaf]

On the other hand, if Kerry picks a really centrist running mate like Evan Bayh, he may very well lose the votes of progressives to Nader.  I for one, will NOT vote for someone who favored Bush's tax cuts, as Bayh did.

Yeah I know. That's what I've been telling everybody all along, and nobody else seems to grasp this.

Since Kerry himself isn't all that liberal on economic issues, he almost has to pick someone like Kucinich to balance the ticket and to avoid alienating liberal voters.

Kerry does not need to balance the ticket to the left, no way.

[© tweed]

On the other hand, if Kerry picks a really centrist running mate like Evan Bayh, he may very well lose the votes of progressives to Nader.  I for one, will NOT vote for someone who favored Bush's tax cuts, as Bayh did.

Yeah I know. That's what I've been telling everybody all along, and nobody else seems to grasp this.

Since Kerry himself isn't all that liberal on economic issues, he almost has to pick someone like Kucinich to balance the ticket and to avoid alienating liberal voters.

Kerry does not need to balance the ticket to the left, no way.

Don't try telling Bandit that

[Gustaf]

On the other hand, if Kerry picks a really centrist running mate like Evan Bayh, he may very well lose the votes of progressives to Nader.  I for one, will NOT vote for someone who favored Bush's tax cuts, as Bayh did.

Yeah I know. That's what I've been telling everybody all along, and nobody else seems to grasp this.

Since Kerry himself isn't all that liberal on economic issues, he almost has to pick someone like Kucinich to balance the ticket and to avoid alienating liberal voters.

Kerry does not need to balance the ticket to the left, no way.

Don't try telling Bandit that

I know, I know, just can't help it...

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

On the other hand, if Kerry picks a really centrist running mate like Evan Bayh, he may very well lose the votes of progressives to Nader.  I for one, will NOT vote for someone who favored Bush's tax cuts, as Bayh did.

Yeah I know. That's what I've been telling everybody all along, and nobody else seems to grasp this.

Since Kerry himself isn't all that liberal on economic issues, he almost has to pick someone like Kucinich to balance the ticket and to avoid alienating liberal voters.

There are a lot of things I like about Kucinich, but he would be a terrible running mate because he just doesn't look or sound presidential.  Talking about establishing a "Department of Peace" really hurts your credibility on the national stage.  

Many people (including myself, I guess) wouldn't want Kucinich as president even though they agree with him ideologically.   I just can't see him negotiating with foreign dignitaries, etc.  I feel the same way about Nader.

The great thing about Edwards is that he is a liberal who has figured out how to appeal to moderates and conservatives.  Nowhere near as liberal as I would prefer, but you have to get 51% somehow.

[Gustaf]

On the other hand, if Kerry picks a really centrist running mate like Evan Bayh, he may very well lose the votes of progressives to Nader.  I for one, will NOT vote for someone who favored Bush's tax cuts, as Bayh did.

Yeah I know. That's what I've been telling everybody all along, and nobody else seems to grasp this.

Since Kerry himself isn't all that liberal on economic issues, he almost has to pick someone like Kucinich to balance the ticket and to avoid alienating liberal voters.

There are a lot of things I like about Kucinich, but he would be a terrible running mate because he just doesn't look or sound presidential.  Talking about establishing a "Department of Peace" really hurts your credibility on the national stage.  

Many people (including myself, I guess) wouldn't want Kucinich as president even though they agree with him ideologically.   I just can't see him negotiating with foreign dignitaries, etc.  I feel the same way about Nader.

The great thing about Edwards is that he is a liberal who has figured out how to appeal to moderates and conservatives.  Nowhere near as liberal as I would prefer, but you have to get 51% somehow.

47.87% is enough.

[opebo]

47.87% is enough for a Republican, probably not for a Democrat.

[Gustaf]

47.87% is enough for a Republican, probably not for a Democrat.

Knock off a few votes from Gore's CA vote and add a few hundred in Florida. In fact you could even remove some of the votes in say Wisconsin and Minnesota, since Florida would out-weigh that.

[© tweed]

You technically can win the white house with 11 votes.

[Gustaf]

You technically can win the white house with 11 votes.

That's assuming lower turnout. You can win with 17% of the vote in a two-man race with normal turnout.

[© tweed]

You technically can win the white house with 11 votes.

That's assuming lower turnout. You can win with 17% of the vote in a two-man race with normal turnout.

Well, if you win TX, CA, NY, etc. each by one vote to zero, you can win with only about a dozen votes.