VP Selections do matter

[Pollwatch99]

In 1992/1996, Clinton had a good pick with Gore.

Last go-around, Cheney bought creditibility to Bush.  Lieberman was a good pick for Gore; almost got him FL and the Presidency.

Look at Kerry's pick 2 months after convention.  How has Edwards benefitted Kerry?  Answer is Zero.

Kerry could have picked Graham to help in Fl; Gephart to help in MS; or the governors of IA or AZ.

Edwards is a true lightweight.

[© tweed]

Edwards does not provide an overwhelming bounce in any one state, but he does help everywhere, hurts really nowhere.

If the race tightens and WV goes to Kerry by 1-2%, Edwards was the difference in WV.  You can say the same about Ohio, but I think Ohio is pretty much over with.

[Pollwatch99]

Doesn't look like WV will go that way either although it's in margin of error in some cases.  The only recent presidental campaign that won with a bad VP pick was Bush Sr. in 1988 with Dan Q who also was a lightweight.
Kemp was a bad pick for Dole in 1996.  Contrary to what media says; VP picks say alot about the candidate.  

Latest polls for WV
Gallup             9/17-9/20 619 LV  Bush +6
Rasmussen    9/16          500 LV  Bush +6
ARG                9/14-9/16  600 LV TIE
Mason-Dixon  9/13-9/14 625 LV  Bush +1

[Akno21]

Mason-Dixon is the best group out of those you listed, and it gives Bush a statistically insignicant lead. So it still could go Kerry.

[TheWildCard]

The fact is Edwards wasn't as good of a choice as I thought he would be. He can't really be used as an affective attack dog like most running mates(which means Kerry has to assume that role). What John Kerry should have done if he didn't intend for Edwards to be an attack dog is get John Edwards out on every late night and talk show. And just generally play up his Mr. Smiley attittude and get Gore or Dean heavily involved in the campaign.

[Pollwatch99]

You got it

[agcatter]

He was no help in the South.  Some Dems were delusional thinking he would be.  Southerners won't vote for a Southern lib (i.e. Gore or Edwards) any more than they'll vote for a Northern lib.

A lefty is a lefty.

[zachman]

Edwards hasn't been making news-worthy enough speeches, he needs to raise his profile on the ticket a bit.

[7,052,770]

Gephart to help in MS;

wouldn't've helped

Anyhow, Richardson I still think would have been the best pick.

[cwelsch]

MS is Mississippi

Missouri is MO

[Sam Spade]

Edwards was a bad VP pick.  I don't care about the rationale, whatever, he was a bad VP pick.  Frankly, Kerry was a bad Presidential pick also.  

It's strange that the Dems do so well in picking Senate candidates this cycle and so bad in Presidential selection.  Go figure.

For a VP candidate, they should have picked Gephardt or Bill Nelson of Florida (even though he's slightly nuts).  I said that the moment Kerry was nominated, I'll say that on Election night when he goes down to defeat as well that Kerry should have picked either Gephardt or Nelson.  Edwards looks, acts and talks juvenile and guess what, everyone thinks he is too.

Richardson would never have run because his stain (no pun intended) was all over the Monica Lewinsky affair and he preferred to stay in the out-of-the-limelight position that he's in.  You left-wingers may think I'm nuts, but this is the truth; it's the most rational explanation for his decision.

[cwelsch]

Kerry was a bad choice, but Gephardt is worse.  I lived in MO for years, nobody there especially likes him or was very enthusiastic about him winning the primary.  Nobody outside his family anyway.  All he brings is unionists and old people scared of losing their Social Security.  He's just boring.

Edwards is much more exciting and has a good appeal to the independents.  They're under-utilizing him and it's pretty late to compensate.  Edwards is very personable.  I don't like a lot of his politics but he has good anecdotes, energy and appeal to middle class indies.  They need to parade him around everywhere, especially suburbs.  He seems like he'd appeal to the South and union, working class types, but polling from the primary showed Kerry hit that group better than Edwards.  Edwards did best with the middle-cass limo-liberal types.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Doesn't look like WV will go that way either although it's in margin of error in some cases.  

Latest polls for WV
Gallup             9/17-9/20 619 LV  Bush +6
Rasmussen    9/16          500 LV  Bush +6
ARG                9/14-9/16  600 LV TIE
Mason-Dixon  9/13-9/14 625 LV  Bush +1

Ah yes... "Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics"... it's so easy to distort statistics to prove your point that it's just not funny...

1. Mason-Dixon showed both candidates polling in the mid-40's, within the MoE and with a high % of undecideds. That's not a lead in my book (if anything the poll was good news for Kerry).

2. ARG, while not exactly a brilliant firm, got the Party Registration stuff for WV about right.

3. Rasmussen is just junk. The approval ratings in it were blatently rigged.

4. Gallup... well I can't say for sure how accurate the Gallup poll was as in their infinate arrogance they don't seem to publish any demographic etc. data (which can be handy for working out if the poll holds any water) and instead assume that people will look at their past record at national level and assume everything with the poll is fine and dandy.
What I *can* say is that the % of undecided voters was far too low.
The Party ID in the poll is close to what was shown by the 2000 exit polls... BUT there's a rather large problem with using the WV exit poll this year; in 2000 Al Gore pissed off (and I mean REALLY pissed off) a lot of people in the overwhelmingly Democratic coal towns of Southern WV. As a result two things happend in the election; 1) turnout (RV) in the coal counties dropped dramatically (over 10% in some cases), 2) Protest voting (a lot of the Protest Voting Democrats would have identified as Indies that year).
As a result it's difficult to work out stuff in WV using Party ID (but it gives the pollsters a neat excuse if they call the state badly wrong).

[Akno21]

Gephart to help in MS;

wouldn't've helped

Anyhow, Richardson I still think would have been the best pick.

Richardson/Warner '08.

Looking back on the primaries, two things strike me

1) None of the candidates were very good.
2) I believe the best ticket would have been Gephardt/Graham.

I never understood what the voters were thinking when I saw exit polls saying people who wanted the most electable candidate voted for Kerry. I do believe that Edwards is overrated, and that we have expected to much from him.

[Pollwatch99]

Although I personally don't like the guy, I think the toughest ticket would have been lead by Liberman.  Bush's advantage on terrorism and IRAQ would have been negated.  No debate because Liberman was right with Bush.  Would have forced debate to be about domestic agenda.   Then Richardson or Grahman as VP.

[© tweed]

He was no help in the South.  Some Dems were delusional thinking he would be.  Southerners won't vote for a Southern lib (i.e. Gore or Edwards) any more than they'll vote for a Northern lib.

A lefty is a lefty.

They why did Gore do 10 points better in TN than Kerry is polling?

[agcatter]

It's called home state.  The fact that he couldn't carry it speaks volumes about the national Democratic Party in the South.

I find it amusing that the Democratic Party continues to veer left and wonder why they can't get those quaint southern folks to vote for them.  The whole party operates in one loony left cocoon.  

Putting a gun in Kerry's hands at an occasional staged event aint gonna cut it.  Keep trying and hoping though.