Democrat tickkets 04?

[Gustaf]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, maybe, but my theory is that these VP candidates can only at best drag their own state along, where they're popular (if they're popular in their home state).   I just don't think Edwards is a national figure - by that I mean that he's not going to appeal to all southerners across that large region just because he's a southerner himself.  After all, they would know they're really voting for a liberal northeasterner for president, and the VP doesn't really matter.   Can anyone who would like to refute this theory point to VP's who really changed things nationally?  Did more than carry their own state against the grain of the Presidential nominee?

What about Johnson in 1960?

[Gustaf]

Assuming Dean wins the nomination, who would be the most advantageous VP?  Not Clark, who is such a vague, half-baked non-entity that I doubt he'd even turn Arkansas, and certainly no other states.  I think VP is not that useful except if it is someone very strongly popular from a big swing state, since they have little national effect, outside their home state.  So Graham from Florida is the best.  Its possible he could turn that state, but very likely no others.  However, that would be enough.  Edwards could not turn NC, which is solid Bush.  He barely won the senate seat there and is not popular.  Richardson would just make sure NM stayed Dem, I don't think he'd turn Arizona.  Besides even if he did, and Bush won Florida, kept Ohio, and gained IA/MN/WI, it wouldn't matter.  Gephart wouldn't give Dean Missouri - he's unpopular statewide outside his district - though he might help hold IA/MN/WI.  I doubt he'd make much difference in OH.  

So it comes down to Graham, even though he's such a sad sack.

Edwards could still turn Arkansas and Louisiana and would make a dent in NC, forcing bush to spend some $$$$ there.

If edwards can not carry his home state then how will he help Dean carry those two?

B/c NC is more Republican than the two others.