and to kick us off, an article from NRO suggesting Edwards is not the guy: -- From S.C. to VP? John Edwards and THE LIST. By Michael Graham John Edwards's primary-contest record is 1-8. His margin over Massachusetts liberal John Kerry in S.C. — Edwards's home state — was about the same as his margin over Howard Dean in Iowa. Hardly impressive. And according to the latest polls, Edwards is trailing in every upcoming primary and caucus from Washington to Virginia. He's not even competing in Michigan this Saturday. So why is Edwards's position significantly different from that of Joe Lieberman, Howard Dean, or Wesley Clark — three other people who won't be the Democratic nominee, either? The media have been mocking Lieberman and Dean. Why not Edwards? Because Edwards allegedly has a plan. Some think he's hoping for John Kerry to have his own "Dean Scream" moment, a gaffe that completely changes the dynamic of the election. Others think he's really hoping primary voters will note that, while he keeps losing to Kerry, he's losing with the support of those moderates and independents the Democrats need to win in November. But the assumption most observers are making is the one that's filling my e-mail inbox: "Edwards isn't running for president. He's running for vice president. He just wants to pull enough votes, particularly in the south, to make the case that he 'balances the ticket' as a southerner." That's from Jason in Chicago, and it does seem to be the assumption of the day. But poke around on Capitol Hill, and Democrats in Washington will tell you the frontrunner for VP isn't Edwards, it's Rep. Dick Gephardt. That could just be institutional bias for a longtime congressional leader, and it's far too early to say who the likely VP for the Dems would be. But what about the accepted assumption that picking a southerner is essential to a Kerry win and that John Edwards is proving himself to be that southerner? Two problems: There is no southerner who can make a far-Left liberal like John Kerry competitive in the south; and even if there were such a southerner, a one-term senator who couldn't hold his own seat isn't that guy. If John Kerry is the nominee, the solid south will be set in stone for the GOP. John Kerry supported partial-birth abortion, civil unions for homosexual couples, higher taxes, and the presidency of Bill Clinton. His war record will be summed up in the south by two words: Jane Fonda. The only way he could be more anathema to southerners would be to endorse tax-funded slavery reparations paid for by the former states of the Confederacy. Therefore, if it is the case that the Democrats must win (as John Edwards keeps saying) five southern states to win the White House, then the 2004 election is already over. But obviously its not. What should be over for the Democrats is the idea of carrying the south, which should focus them on winning the Great Lakes and Rust Belt states where Kerry will be competitive. And who's the VP who can help in Missouri? Who can attract union voters in Ohio and New Hampshire? That would be Dick Gephardt. There are other fine VP possibilities, too. Gov. Bill Richardson in New Mexico comes to mind. But John Edwards is not on that list. — Radio-talk-host Michael Graham covers southern politics from his home in Virginia. He is an NRO contributor.
The National Review speculating on who will be the Democratic VP nominee is tantamount to Popular Electronics speculating on whether Britney Spears is sexier than Christina Aguilera. Nice try, blasto. Next.......
Major props for this reply in the face of an insult. RMT, it's just an article. And the subject leads me to believe we're free to start speculating, even if it's a little early to do so. Overall, I think basso's motivated more by ideas than political parties. Cheers.
Home state? Wow, I bet the constituents of Sen. John Edwards, (D-North Carolina) will not be too happy to hear about this. I guess he was born there though, huh?
thanks mon- i read another intruiging article on, yes another conservative blog, about why abandoning the south is a poor idea for the dems. just doing the electoral math, and adding in additional solidly republican states out west, Bush would have 214 electoral votes out of 270 before we even start talking about contested states. for the record, the question as posed seems like a choice between a root-canal and a tooth extraction. at least in musical terms, this is far sexier.
I've seen the state-by-state analysis (or a similar one) that basso mentions, and it seems sensible to an extent. What is not at all sensible is the analysis that Kerry won't pull any votes in the south. It's a media creation largely built on one half of one spoken sentence taken out of context. He actually pulled a good number of votes in SC, which surprised a lot of people. As for choice of a VP of southern roots, does that really sway anybody? I'll admit Cheney swayed me because I've always had a very low (and fearful, honestly) opinion of him, whereas I liked some of Bush's original platform. But how often to VP candidates really matter to voters? I'd think it's an overstated aspect of the whole election.
yeah, but if bush carries the exact same states this year as in 2000, he wins by 18 votes because of reapportionment.
there've been times when it made a big difference (1960 when arguably LBJ delivered Texas) and times when it didn't (1988, what difference did Quayle make?). I guess it depends on the dynamics of the race. Edwards is a great campaigner, so from that standpoint he'd bring alot of energy, and could possibly help in vulnerable southern states, like florida. certainly gephardt is extremely qualified, although a Kerry/Gephardt ticket would have to be one of the most laconic in history. but if he could help secure borderline midwest/industrial states, perhaps he makes some sense. it would mean pretty much writing off the south. and btw, if it's someone like Gephardt, I think Cheney stays on the ticket. he'd look pretty old against edwards.
True but W.Va., MO., and New Hampshire could do it. That would leave out the entire south. If Florida comes into play those other states would just be insurance for Kerry.
it'd be ironic to win the presidency, yet not an entire region of the country. maybe the south'll secede again? would kerry see that as an imminent threat, worth fighting for? probably, but then, he wouldn't want to fund reconstruction...
VPs are not only chosen to make up for geographical differences. Quayle was not chosen to get Indiana, he was chosen to appease the religious right. Remember, they did not like or trust Bush I. It was a get out the vote measure. Energizing the base rather than fighting over the middle. I think Edwards and Richardson make good sense for geographical reasons as well as energizing the base reasons. Edwards is dynamic while Kerry is... not. He has poor roots to match Kerry's Boston Brahmin roots. He is a hell of a speaker, a hell of a cheerleader. I think he makes a lot of sense notwithstanding the fact that he will unlikely deliver any southern states for Kerry. Its not what he would be there for. He'd be there to make sure people who were planning on voting for Kerry really did it. Young people. It would be to put a new, bright face on the party. Richardson also is young, fresh...etc., and latino. I think either of them would look great alongside Kerry. I think Graham makes no sense as Kerry's vp for a lot of the reasons he made so much sense as Dean's. Kerry does not need a steadying experienced hand keeping him in check like Dean would have, he needs someone new, making him (Kerry) look that much more experienced. Same goes for Gephardt.
