Should Gore and/or Kerry have just picked Graham of Florida as VP?

[WI_DEM]

Total hypothetical, but given how close Florida was in 2000--it is not inconceivable that if Bob Graham had been Al Gore's running mate that the vote in Florida would not have been close enough for W to steal.

In 2004--while Kerry lost Florida, it was still closer than any other southern state--and perhaps with Graham (who opposed the Iraqi resolution) and was a big thorn in Bush's side on intelligence issues--Kerry might have pulled Florida out.

Of course this is Monday night quarterbacking, but with Florida being such a crucial state both years, it is interesting that both Gore and Kerry by-passed Graham--the most popular Democrat in the state and a man who had tons of experience. In the end it comes down to winning 270 electoral votes and Florida would have given the Dems the election both times.

[Avalux]

1. Wouldn't have made a difference

Gore and Kerry could have had Jesus himself on the ticket and the repugs still would have found a way to steal it.

[WI_DEM]

4. I disagree

at least regarding 2000--Had the vote in Florida been more decisive for Gore, W couldn't have stolen it.

[TwilightZone]

8. I'm inclined to agree.

Bush & Co. pulled every trick in the book, and Bush still only "won" by around 500 votes. Had Gore - officially - won several thousand more votes, it would have been significantly more difficult to steal.

[dolstein]

28. Has anyone forgotten what a godawful candidate Graham was?

His campaign skills leave a lot to be desired. I think it's far from clear that choosing Graham would have been a net plus.

[expatriot]

2. They would have been merciless on his health status, age, etc.

[WI_DEM]

5. mute issues

How many heart attacks has Cheney had? His age? He was younger than Reagan when Reagan was first elected president. Age doesn't matter as much any longer.

[Jade Fox]

3. Might have worked....

In retrospect I wish Kerry had chosen Grahm.

[blm]

6. Kerry should have forgotten Florida altogether. Jeb Bush would NEVER

allow his brother to lose there, no matter what, even if Jesus Christ was Kerry's VP.

[Padraig18]

21. I said the same thing.

I said from Day 1 that we would NEVER win Florida.

[LeftyLizzie]

27. I agree, too.

As a Floridian, I was feeling really, really hopeful about our chances in 2004, because I could see the support growing, and I know at least a dozen people who voted for Bush in 2000 and decided to vote for Kerry in '04, and I don't know any who went the other way. My mom kept saying, "No way, Jeb is gonna mess with it, it doesn't matter how hard we work." At the time I criticized her for being too negative, but now I tend to think she is right. . .

[mmonk]

7. Nah

why subject him to smear as well?

[shawcomm]

9. Keeping in mind that hindsight is 20/20

or, in my case, at least 20/200 :smoke:

I'd say that, yes, he would have been a better pick than Lieberman and Edwards. CT wasn't a worry and Edwards couldn't deliver his own state, so had Florida been better represented on the ticket, I'm sure the difference in 2000 would have been large enough that the pug's thievery couldn't have happened.

With this last election, it may have made enough of a difference to turn the tide in FL.

[Kahuna]

10. Gore definately should have. I don't think it mattered with Kerry.

nt

[AP]

11. 50% of FL Dem primary voters wanted Edwards as VP, less than 20% wanted...

...Graham or Nelson.

Furthermore, Edwards was probably more appealing to moderates and Republicans. I read that the more Graham campaigned for president, the less moderate FL voters thought he was the guy they elected Senator.

As for Gore-Graham, Gore picked Lieberman to do well in FL. Lieberman was an "all eggs in FL basket" VP pick. However, I don't know if he compared him to Graham.

[WI_DEM]

15. maybe so, but I think 2000 it would have made a difference

[AP]

17. Edwards on the ticket in 2000 probably would have made a difference.

And if it didnt', it probably would have produced an Edwards nomination in 2004 that would have resulted in a Demcoratic victory.

[Freddie Stubbs]

20. Those are people who would have probably voted for the ticket anyway

The big question is, who would have swayed the independent voters. No one polled them on that issue.

[AP]

22. Actually, somone did poll them on that question.

Edwards' strength vis-à-vis Kerry appears to stem from a greater appeal to Republicans and Independents. Post-deliberation, our Republican participants rated Kerry's traits at about 43 (somewhat to the negative side of the neutral point of 50) but Edwards' at 57, a statistically significant difference. Our Independent participants rated Kerry at 61 but Edwards at 66, a close to statistically significant difference. (Our Democratic participants rated the two about the same.) Among both Republicans and independents, these ratings are significantly more positive among the participants than in the control group for Edwards but not Kerry, indicating that deliberation increased Edwards' advantage.

Furthermore, in a hypothetical November matchup against President Bush, Edwards fared significantly better than Kerry. While Kerry and Bush were tied at 47%, roughly a quarter of the participants favoring Bush in that matchup said they would be undecided or would prefer Edwards if the choice were instead between Bush and Edwards. In all, 48% said they would vote for Edwards and only 37% for Bush, if Edwards were the Democratic nominee. The contrast with the control group, which showed a similar but significantly weaker pattern, was highly significant statistically (26% of Bush supporters defected in the experimental group while only 12% defected in the control group). These results suggest a strong appeal of Edwards among Independents and Republicans.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/btp/march04-poll.html

Kerry definitely did one thing right. He picked the best VP possible. Not only would he have disappointed the 50% plus Democratic voters who either wanted Edwards on the ticket or wanted him as VP, he picked the VP who was most appealing to Republicans and independents. Furthermore, unlike many other Democrats, he picked someone whom people liked even more the more they thought and talked and knew about.

I know that no amount of logic, facts, or seeing with your their own eyes will convince people that Edwards was an excellent VP pick (and excellent candidate in his own right). But the facts and logic and evidence are all right there in front of your eyes.

Incidentally, notice that this deliberative poll mirrored almost precisely the outcome of the election. If Edwards had run it predicts a 48:37 Edwards advantage. Of course, Republicans would have thrown everything at Edwards, as they did at Kerry. However, please tell me with a straight face you would have wanted to start with someone who only goes 47:47 versus Bush over someone with an 11% advantage. (Incidentally, this poll included ALL the people running during the 5 or 6 week period beginning January 19, and Edwards did the best of everyone.)

[Freddie Stubbs]

23. I don't deny that Edwards was a good pick

But he obviously wasn't enough to tip the scales in Kerry's favor.

[AP]

24. He was the best choice this year.

I tend to agree with Awsi Dooger's post here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1612609&mesg_id=1615314&page=

A John Glenn minus 20 years might have made the difference in OH, which might have made the difference in the race.

But I'll add that Edwards was the most popular Dem this year. People liked him even more than Kerry, even if they went with Kerry at the top of the ticket (because Kerry had war experience and seemed so serious? -- yeah!).

Edwards definitely didn't hurt the ticket, and his laser focus on how Americans were living life during this historical phase of late-capitalism and the death of the middle class was definitely helpful all over the mid-west, in OH, MN, WI, IA, and MI -- all states where Kerry was VERY competitive despite being less appealing nationally than Gore.

[pstans]

12. Neither Lieberman or Edwards brought much to the table

Graham would have been a better choice. Not sure if he would have changed the outcome considering all of the voting fraud.

[lateo]

13. It wouldn't have mattered at all...

Can we just let go and move on?

[lojasmo]

14. I would have been HAPPY to vote Kerry with Graham.

As it was, I was ABB.

[mattclearing]

16. But, but, but Joementum helped carry Connecticut!!!

:eyes:

[Comicstripper]

18. Graham should have been the nominee n/t

[cestpaspossible]

19. That's what I thought

[cestpaspossible]

25. Gore should've picked Kerry.

[Awsi Dooger]

26. Gore, definitely

This year Graham or Nelson would have narrowed our Florida loss and nothing else.

But Florida 2000, obviously the most pivotal electoral result since Texas 1960 and probably beyond, was almost certainly outside the dimple/theft margin if Graham had been on the ticket. Florida has not been represented on the ticket in well, maybe forever. The statewide sense of pride and loyalty would have more than trumped any attempt to characterize Graham as weird.

Besides, the situation in Florida 2000 was incredibly favorable compared to 2004. The GOP did not feel seriously threatened there until late in the game. There was hardly the 4-year emphasis on registration and GOTV like this year. Plus, in 2000 the Florida state economy was on par with the nation. In 2004 it was considerably better than nationally, and Bush's approval rating correspondingly always much higher in Florida than the national average.

[blue4barb]

29. Two words-- "e l e c t i o n" "f r a u d".

It doesn't matter who was VP candidate. Results would have been the same.

[rfkrfk]

30. a different invisible Senator, would not have helped Kerry.... n/t