Edwards WILL NOT be VP. Most likely Evan Bayh.

[TheBigDemo]

How do I know, well Kerry would have named him already. Edwards just came off a hot run for President. People like him and want him to be VP. It would be much better timing for Kerry to pick Edwards now rather than later when people get tired of screaming at the top of their lungs for Kerry to pick Edwards.

Edwards is the reason Kerry has not named a VP as of yet. Kerry knows that if he decided now Edwards supporters will be upset. So Kerry is waiting for people to cool down about Edwards. None, of the former Presidential Candidates are likely to be chosen. Edwards spend millions of dollars promoting awareness about himself, so obviously people are going to want him for VP. He was the Democrats 2nd choice for the nomination.

Guess what? You want a VP that is going to help us win the General Election, not the Democratic Nomination twice. Democrats don't have a shot at winning any of the Southern States except for Florida and maybe South Carolina.

This election is going to come down to two states. Ohio and Florida. Kerry wants to win either one of those. That means he has to go with Graham, Nelson, or Bayh. Graham will cost Kerry popular votes outside of Florida, Nelson is not experienced enough and ready to be President. That only leaves Bayh. You can argue for Gephardt and Gov. Mark Warner of Virginia. However, Bayh is well hated on this forum, which is good for winning Moderate and Republican Votes. Kerry is not going to invest in the South. He is going for Florida and Ohio.

Kerry/Bayh may not be our favorite ticket. However, it is much better than Bush/Cheney and it is a sure way to beat Bush. We can bury Bayh they way we buried Lieberman's political career after he was elected VP.

Kerry/Bayh would win Ohio, NH, Florida, and all the Gore States.

[Ediacara]

1. Bayh won't win us Indiana

He's useless on a ticket for geography, and he won't energize our base. Kerry should stick with Clark or Edwards.

The reason he hasn't chosen anyone yet is because it's customary to make a big media deal out of it in the summer.

[TheBigDemo]

6. Did I say he would win us Indiana, No I didn't, he wins us Ohio

Which is important. Bayh is popular amoung moderate Ohio voters. That is what you need to win.

[Ediacara]

14. if you're after Ohio

Wouldn't Glenn or Kucinich, or heck Gephardt be better choices?

[ShaneGR]

53. What are you talking about? Ohio voters don't know who Bayh is

I'm from Ohio, trust me, it's a myth that the average Ohio voter has ANY idea who so Indiana politician, heck, they don't even know who their own reps are.

I'll tell you this though, Edwards will play REALLY well here.

[Tim_in_HK]

85. Exactly right, I think

No one knows who Bayh is. And when was the last time that a VP helped the ticket win a state in contention that borders the VP's own state? I have no idea . . . but I'd guess never.

[BuelahWitch]

116. I agree Edwards would play better in Ohio

Especially among those who worked in the mills. How do I know this? Because my former steelmillworker uncles would have all voted for Edwards in the PA primary (they're in W. PA). I was trying to talk them into Dean but they liked Edwards.

I think Edwards would also appeal to moderates. If you go with Bayh the base that is not that thrilled with Kerry might just stay home.

[salin]

103. Bayh is more popular with democrats in Ohio, than in Indiana?

Interesting.

Point is, Bayh has a certain kind of strong appeal in Indiana... but it is a qualified appeal. One has to understand that, before one can extrapolate his appeal beyond Indiana.

Bayh is considered a fiscal "blue dog" democrat with centrist social policy view that was slightly left of center as governor and initially in the senate, but that has moved to the right under bush - and his votes for bush fiscal policy belie the "Blue Dog" tag.

In Indiana his adherence to fiscal policy first ... that any new program, tax cut or tax hike, had to be offset elsewhere in order to be revenue/impact neutral... has a great appeal. Won statewide so handily in the second race, that sitting Repub Senator Dan Coats retired from the Senate rather than likely losing to very popular Bayh.

Bayh's appeal crosses party lines (though he is not terribly well received in some democratic circles around the state - but accepted as a better altnerative than the likley repubs who would replace him.) But note - Bayh is NOT as popular as Bush. His support only goes so far. It has never pushed up or down the ticket (e.g., help other democrats get elected.... no coat tails.) So the contradiction - is he is nearly unbeatable in Indiana... probably for any seat except vice president (I think hoosier pride for bayh, heaven forbid he was at the top of the dem ticket, would over-ride the inclination to vote R at the top of the ticket.) Again I state - Bush is far more popular (esp with moderate swing voters who vote for Bayh) than is Bayh. Bush at the top and Bayh #2 - odds for Bush.

So how does Bayh help Ohio, a state who has trended more conservative during the same period where Indiana was starting to trend more moderate/centrist in terms of who gets elected to state-wide office... when Bayh is unlikely to bring Indiana.

Indiana is odd - that it doesn't seem to be influenced by, nor to have any influence upon, political trends of any of its neighbors (Ohio, Mich, Ill., or Kentucky.) Doesn't follow trends of other farm states, of other border states (like Ken), or of other Industrial (rust-belt) states - though the state has constituencies which fit each of those groups.

[cosmokramer]

92. Bayh is UNKNOWN in Ohio, and he woudn't win his own state.

Clark can help in Ohio easily...Bayh would drive voters AWAY from the ticket.

[sandnsea]

2. How is Bayh ready?

How is he more experienced than Nelson? I don't know a whole lot about either of them.

I think a whole different approach. Rural voters in red and swing states. Edwards.

[JDPriestly]

3. Bayh

Bayh is from Indiana and is not particularly well known. Why would he draw so many votes in Ohio, NH and Florida? What is the appeal?

[mohc]

4. If we have a shot in South Carolina...

...then we have a shot anywhere in the south. Gore lost SC by 16 points, FL, TN, AR, LA, VA, GA, NC, AL, and KY were all closer. The only truly southern state more far gone than SC is MS (I'm not counting TX or OK).

[JI7]

5. Tom Harkin is better than Bayh

if it's geography than tom harkin should be the one from someone in that area.

[TheBigDemo]

8. I said Ohio, not Iowa, we got Iowa. n/t

[JI7]

11. bayh is from indiana

what is there to show bayh could help get ohio ? and especially compared to harkin ? and we didn't win iowa by that much in 2000. it's still considered a swing state.

[TheBigDemo]

19. Well, let me explain. Money and popularity among Moderates

Bayh borders Ohio, and has spend millions on advertising in Ohio because when he runs ads in Indiana they spill over into Ohio. About 50% of Ohio people know Bayh. He was also Governor, and so was his Dad.
Harkin is great for attracting Democrats to vote. But we need Moderates, and that is difference. Plus, Harkin is less known in Ohio than Bayh.

[JI7]

31. John Kerry is well known

and whoever kerry picks to be vp will become well known so name recognition is not a factor. and i see no evidence that bayh will help win indiana and ohio. and i believe we have a chance in ohio but it will have more to do with how the campaign is run and the message put out rather than who the vp is.

[TheBigDemo]

35. "and i see no evidence that Bayh will help win Indiana and Ohio."

Well, you need to open your eyes. He is highly popular in those states and has a shit load of money. If Popularity, money, and 20 years of political office experience doesn't count as evidence, what does?.

Plus, Indiana has a Democratic Governor, all the other candidates for VP would cost us a Democratic Senate Seat. Not with Bayh.

[arcos]

38. not in Louisiana... n/t

[spooky3]

81. lived in OH for 17 years and I agree with sgr2 and others who say

you are wrong. People in OH do not know Bayh; why should they care about the Indiana governor? At least senators and reps.' votes affect other states; governors are "local". The only city that borders OH is Richmond and there is no OH city near Richmond, so I don't see how Bayh's ads would have reached many OH voters. He will NOT help them win OH based on the opinions you've offered.

You put forth the name; YOU make the case based on evidence before you'll convince most of us.

[spooky3]

82. Edwards does not "cost us" a Dem Senate seat, as has been pointed out

a zillion times. He is not running for re-election. Erskine Bowles is running for that seat.

[salin]

106. Except that Bushco is putting tons of $ into getting Mitch Daniels

elected... in which case there are a slew of colorful Indiana Hoosiers that Daniels could appoint to the senate: Dan Burton (let's investigate Clinton.. again...), Steve Buyer (let's drop a tactical nuke in Afghanistan), John Hostettler (lectures breast cancer survivors about dubious studies that link breast cancer and abortions), etc.

[salin]

105. Small correction.. the father, Birch Bayh, was a senator

I do not recall that he was ever Governor.

[arcos]

7. that doesn't make any sense...

your post is pure speculation.

There is no proof Graham would cost Kerry votes, and how does Bayh help in Florida and Ohio?

Plus, Lousiana is also a Southern State who is in play, and much more so than South Carolina.

[TheBigDemo]

13. Does Kerry have enough money to play in every state? I don't think so

It costs a lot of money to convert the south than win just one state.

Louisiana would cost more than Ohio to win. We only need about 50,000 votes in Ohio out of millions. Louisiana you need more from a smaller population.

[Ediacara]

17. if you think South Carolina is winnable

then Wyoming and Idaho are winnable..... Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina are leaps and bounds more winnable than South Carolina.

[TheBigDemo]

21. Well, that is my point. What good is Edwards if he Cannot win a single

Southern state. Thanks for presenting my case.
Any state is winnable, by either party. It is just how much money and time to invest to get the most amount of electoral and popular votes from a limited amount of time and money your have. The South doesn't have a good return ratio for the Democrats.

[King of New Orleans]

23. See #9 for why Edwards might be the choice

eom

[Gore1FL]

72. It is unclear that Edwards would help win a single state

But he might put many in play. additionally, the beliefe that Edwards is the only other choice is not really accurate.

[DemDogs]

147. It is clear that Edwards helps everywhere

Everywhere there are working people
Everywhere there are rural communities
Everywhere there are nervous moderates
Everywhere there are people who need to be excited about the ticket.

[Gore1FL]

173. True

But it is unclear that he would carry a state due to his presence on the ticket.. but as I said, he would help put them in play.

Pretty much what you said, but from a different angle.

[Ediacara]

157. what are you talking about?

You said "the only southern states we have a chance of winning are Florida and South Carolina." South Carolina is among the LEAST winnable southern states, after all the others I just listed. Only Mississippi and Alabama might be harder......

Edwards or Clark would help us quite a bit in attempting to pick off some or all of those states, but South Carolina..... Like I said before, if we're winning in SC we're winning in a 51 state landslide.

[RummyTheDummy]

172. It doesn't matter how much money Bayh has or doesnt have

Those funds aren't transferable from one campaign to another.

[arcos]

34. Breaux or Landrieu could deliver Lousiana...

and don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating they should be chosen, but your arguments in favor of Evan Bayh are extremely weak. I still don't see how Bayh could help win Ohio.

[Carolina]

98. yuck

Mary had to fight twice to win her seat last time and Breaux is Zell-lite. Neither of them INSPIRE anybody outside of Louisiana. Besides, Mary needs to stay in the Senate.

How many times does it need to be said that we cannot afford to lose sitting senators (wimpocrats that many are) at this time. If Kerry wins, he needs the shoring of a Democratic presence in the Senate. What good is a Dem president with a Senate that is almost 60% repuke!

We need someone with broad appeal who is already known, liked and has demonstrated vote-getting ability. This triangulation selection of a particular individual in hopes of getting ONE state is a losing
strategy.

Kerry-Edwards.

[arcos]

125. LA has a Democratic Governor...

she would appoint a Democrat to Landrieu's seat.

[Carolina]

126. so Breaux should resign now

and let the governor fill that other seat right now. Still, keep Mary in the Senate: she has now broad appeal (no pun intended) and this is not the time to test the waters with a woman for VP.

[TheBigDemo]

123. Kerry the nomination is also speculation, but it pretty safe if you

have an understanding of what someone needs to win.

[King of New Orleans]

9. Before they choose any VP

They are going to do thorough vetting and almost certainly thorough polling too. The fact theat Edwards hasn't been named yet doesn't mean he might not be. Edwards does bring an angle beyond his location (and in fact NC may not be won even if Edwards was on the ticket). Edwards did well with younger voters and he did strike a nerve with his outsourcing-fair trade tack. The son of a mill worker thing (while it got repetious at times) may make some voters think he'll keep Kerry "honest" on the trade issue.


I do think Bayh will be on the short list, along with Mark Warner (Warner has some interesting strengths too and VA would seem more winable than NC or IN, but I reckon polling will delve into that)

[Cuban_Liberal]

79. It'll be Edwards, Warner or Breaux.

Bookmark this thread.

[Hippo_Tron]

158. Breaux won't be anywhere near a national ticket...

Don't get me wrong, I think he's a great guy and is far better than any Republican down here in Louisiana, but he's too centrist to be VP.

[spooky3]

83. I agree. They ought to do name recognition/approval polls in all the

swing states that they can afford, and in the South as well.

[Tom Rinaldo]

88. Those mean nothing at this stage

By that token Dean would have been our overwhelming nominee two and a half months ago. And while one can try saying, well the public wasn't really tuned in then but now they are, it is just a matter of degree. The general public still knows next to nothing about most of the people whose names are being mentioned. Whoever John Kerry is his wisdom decides is his best running mate will within three weeks get more media attention than either Wesley Clark or John Edwards has received to date. And if it is someone who the public doesn't know hardly at all, like Nelson in Florida, within that time span that man or women will become as well known to the public as John Edwards is now, maybe more so. Even the basis for approval/disapproval ratings is paper thin right now. The only exception to that is someone like Hillary.

[spooky3]

118. Exactly how do you propose that name recognition/approval

would change for VP candidates pre-nomination? These individuals are not campaigning, unlike Presidential candidates. Therefore, there is no parallel to Dean or any other Presidential candidate. The current indicators are likely to be quite stable over the time between now and July, unless for some reason some group decides to promote a VP candidate, which would be highly unusual in American politics.

Your post suggests that whoever the nominee is will ***at the time of nomination and afterward*** get attention, but that is a different issue than what the other poster and I are addressing. Look at the first post--it deals with info needed *BEFORE* the nominee is selected.

To the extent that a currently well-respected person would help a ticket get elected in a swing state, it would be useful to have actual data--as opposed to various political junkies' opinion--about how well known, approved of, respected, etc. people currently are, in the swing states.

[Tom Rinaldo]

140. For the most part I was commenting of broad based polling

A lot has been made by some of the fact that Candidate A, Edwards in this case, is named by a relatively large percentage of the public as being the best running mate for Kerry. If that is as far as it goes I don't think it provides much valuable insight for the reasons I stated. It is in a way about as meaningful as it was for Wes Clark to be leading all polls for the Presidential nod 5 days after he announced. People named him even though they didn't know any thing in depth about him. When the attacks started, Clark dropped (then he slowly moved part of the way back up when more people became familiar with Clark as a person rather than a discredited fantasy). If polling is done with more discrimination, focusing perhaps on those people who report that they are already fairly familiar with all of the candidates being polled, some valuable data can emerge.

P.S. added on edit: Or if people are polled on qualities that would like to see in a Vice President, or experience they would like a Vice President to bring to the ticket that would make them more comfortable voting for Kerry over Bush. That is meaningful even if those polled actually know little about all our potential candidates. The Pro's know how to translate that data into viable names for those who can fill the bill.

[DjTj]

10. umm...nobody ever names a VP this early.

So the premise for your post is invalid.

It would be very unorthodox for Kerry to name a VP now (before he even has enough delegates for the nomination) without at the very least going through the motions of forming a search committee.

The fact that Kerry hasn't announced a VP now tells us absolutely nothing about anyone's chances.

[TheBigDemo]

22. Nobody has won the nomination this early either.

[DjTj]

27. In 2000 both Bush and Gore won the nomination at this time.

McCain and Bradley both dropped out right after Super Tuesday.

[TheBigDemo]

29. That is different, We didn't know Cheney was going to be VP, like we kind

of know now.

[DjTj]

39. I don't think we *know* now...

...or else we wouldn't be talking about it so much.

In any case, the basic fact of the matter is that it would be a bold and unorthodox move for Kerry to pick a VP now - something that has never *ever* been done before. So, to say that you would expect that Edwards would have already been named is a huge stretch.

I mean, if you just step back a moment, you'll realize that Edwards left the race less than one week ago. Nobody knows what kind of financial shape his campaign is in, and he hasn't even sent home all his staff yet.

Maybe you have a good argument for Kerry naming a VP earlier rather than later, but earlier in this case is like May instead of July. Early has never been one week after a candidate dropped out, and it certainly shouldn't be before you have enough delegates for the nomination IMHO.

[Gore1FL]

63. Mondale swept Super Tuesday in 84, as I recollect

Gary Harts wins in New England were eroded faster than National Parks under Bush.

[Leilani]

12. I disagree with your entire thesis

Sen Kerry is a smart & cautious man. I'm sure his team is carefully vetting all possible candidates.

They have to be checked for possible scandals, health problems, etc.
I'm sure they are also polling in different battleground states, to see who would be the strongest addition to the ticket.

Then there are issues of compatibility, issues to consider, etc.

He will take his time & make what he thinks is the best choice.

[lucidmadman]

15. Max Cleland...

..puts GA into play in the GE and will appeal to males 40-60 years old throughout the South and Mid-West...

[TheBigDemo]

36. Cleland lost to a Nazi in Georgia, and Miller will campaign for Bush n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

159. You're kidding me, right?

It would be one thing if he had won re-election but the fact is he lost. We don't need somebody who looses their senate seat on the ticket.

[lucidmadman]

171. No....

...I'm not.

[elsiesummers]

16. Bayh - not the best choice -has to bring a state.

Not convinced Bayh could bring IN. He does have a pot o' gold war chest. He is a spokesmodel but uninspired. Bayh would help with the inattentive who go for looks alone - second rate for the politically active. He is more experienced than Nelson. If the goal is to pick someone less charismatic than Kerry then Bayh is the man.

Nelson is SO dull - a slow talker - but Fl is a better shot than In.

Where did you get the idea that the Dems might bring South Carolina with any candidate? That state is soooo off the table.

Edwards might help with NC (maybe), LA (on style alone), WV (style again) or VA (Kerry military vote plus Edwards regional appeal). Bottom line - all we need is ONE of these - I think he can bring one - just don't know which.

Agree that Graham is a net drag on the ticket.

If you are picking a candidate on regional basis alone - then Gephardt makes much more sense than Bayh, or even Clark, if he brings AK and isn't torn apart by the media.

[TheBigDemo]

28. Bayh would bring in Ohio, neighboring state, and help in Michigan,

and Illinois. He would also help in balancing the ticket out a bit Liberal/Moderate. He has good looks, but would also bring in, as you stated, money. Bush would absorb the most amount of financial costs defending Indiana and trying, fruitlessly, to win Michigan. It forces Bush to invest everything he has into Florida and Ohio.

It is Ohio, not Indiana, that Kerry is looking at.

SC only is in play if JE is picked, and even than, a longer shot. SC has lost 100,000 jobs under Bush, their economy is hurting big time.

[elsiesummers]

43. JE is from NC not SC.

SC was never in play. I think Edwards strength is underestimated in North Carolina - it may be tough but it could happen. VA and WV are more where he might help (on trade in WV). I think that Edwards offers something stronger, but less tangible, than regional appeal. Also a good fund raiser.

Bayh - no one has ever heard of him in IL - you are off base if you think he means anything there - and it will go Dem anyway because of Chicago, as usual.

If you want Ohio - why not pick Gephardt, who might bring Ohio and will bring Missouri, could seal Iowa?

Michigan.

Gephardt may not be a favorite here at DU - but if you are looking for regional wins - get Gephardt and you have the whole ball of wax.

Bayh also loses us a Republican leaning Senate seat.

Breaux, for LA (since he is retiring), on a regional basis makes much more sense than Bayh.

You should take a look at the electoral map at the johnedwards2004.com site - it might help out.

Take a look at Open Secrets.org if you want to know how Bayh raises money from Arthur Anderson.

[TheBigDemo]

44. Edwards was born in SC. Senator from NC. He cannot win NC.

[elsiesummers]

48. How do you know? Edwards has a better shot at NC

than Bayh at OH.

Really. Spend some time in NC before you jump to that conclusion.

The only reason this myth is perpetuated is (1)R.W. talking points against Edwards. (2)The Edwards talking point that he should be at the top of the ticket (not bottom) to win NC and (3)Kerry said this to knock him out in the primary although Edwards was polling ahead of Bush in NC before he dropped from the race.

Don't believe the hype.

[Gore1FL]

64. Seems like he won NC once before statewide

n/t

[SangamonTaylor]

121. The last poll showed Edwards beating bush in NC

just before Edwards dropped out of the race.

[spooky3]

120. Gephardt is not popular in OH. There is some union support.

But that is about it.

[5thGenDemocrat]

47. Michiganian here

Bayh wouldn't do any good in Michigan whatsoever. I don't know much about politics but (a) 80 percent of Michiganians have no idea who Bayh is and we don't much look upon Indiana as a neighbor except in the strictest geographical sense, anyhow. Further, (b) we'd rather see someone like John Conyers of Detroit get the nod at veep (liberal, black and strong labor creds) if we're going to be patronized.
Carl Levin would be even better -- but we don't want to give him up, thanks.
John
Don't worry about Michigan. Gore carried it last time, Clinton twice before that -- and Dopey has done absolutely nothing to help his chances in the Wolverine State since 2000.
Michigan goes Dem and fairly easily this time.

[cosmokramer]

94. NO CHANCE Bayh helps in Ohio...

...I am in Ohio, I know the Chairman of the Dem Party for Ohio, and the Vice Chair is a personal friend. No chance for Bayh in Ohio...he is UNKNOWN entirely.

Clark was very, very popular here, as was Gephardt, so if Ohio is what the Kerry team wanted, the LAST person they would choose is Bayh. Ick.

[fujiyama]

18. What appeal does Bayh have?

The few times I've seen him on TV I've found him dreadfully dull and not really all that charistmatic. What national security policy/ foreign relations experience does he have?

And While I see a lot of unity in the party, I can see a lot of the base not being energized very much. Not only that, but he's anti-choice, which means the party would piss off various interest groups (get out the vote efforts and money) and voters.

Bayh also supported the second round of Bush's tax cuts, IIRC. While I agree we need a moderate from the Midwest/ South/ Southwest to balance the ticket, Bayh is a polar opposite, which raises many questions and makes Kerry look he's blatantly politically pandering -- which he would be guilty of.

I'd have to say, even Gephardt might be a better choice. John Edwards, Wes. Clark, Graham, all would be better.

[Doomsayer13]

20. Young, moderate, from the midwest

Indiana is red,but there's the hope that he'd give us a shot at the state. He may help with Ohio. If Bush loses those two states, he's toast.

[Gore1FL]

66. Are young and moderate good things?

Indiana is maybe "Industrial Midwest" but the midwest starts West of the Mississippi. The reason I point this out is not to pick nits, but to clarify that Midwestern Voters and those to the east differ significantly.

I don't see Bayh being a useful addition either geographically, or politically.

[DemDogs]

148. You won't notice, though. A sleeper. (n/t)

[spooky3]

84. Please provide evidence (numbers) showing that Midwesterners

vote for Midwesterners in Presidential campaigns to any greater extent than do people in other parts of the country.

[TheBigDemo]

134. Ford, Mondale, and Taft, always vote for their man. Even Indiana voted for

Quayle. Cannot get more loyal than that.

[salin]

187. lol - last comment is a bit of silly logic

it doesn't take much loyalty for top of the ticket red-state voting Indiana to vote for the republican ticket. I would drop that point from the repetoire as it is a completely different scenario for Bayh (would have to tip the ticket blue which hasn't happened since 1964.)

Ohio's landscape has changed dramatically in the past 15 years. They had two elected dem senators - one VERY liberal. Democrats won statewide. Currently that isn't happening.

[salin]

108. No chance he brings Indiana

Bush has already been to the state 3 times for fundraising and promoting Mitch Daniels for governor. Huge crowds, turnout, and money raised. Bayh is popular here (but unknown beyond the state) - but nowhere nearly as popular as bush.

Indiana has never followed, nor been followed by - any of its neighbors: Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, nor Illinois. I doubt that the uncharismatic Bayh (who by the way recently said on tv - after Kay had gone public that there were probably NEVER WMDs in Iraq in recent years - denied Kay by claiming that he was CERTAIN that WMDs would be found in Iraq... this repeated affirmation would undercut Kerry's position that the lead up to the war was irresponsible, the president was deceptive, etc.)

[Bombtrack]

24. "south carolina" are you f*ing kidding

SC is in the same echelon of solid red states as Utah and Mississippi

The moderate red southern states are first of all Florida, mostly because the majority of it's population is not in dixie. Slightly more red, and really longshots more than swingstates are Louisiana and Arkansas. Those 2 would have gone for some Dem nominees, like Edwards and Clark, but very doubtfully will they go for Kerry and shouldn't be considered swingstates.

But NC, VA, TN, and GA are all alot more moderate and closer to the center than South friggin Carolina

[zulchzulu]

25. No....way....

First of all, Bayh's name is pronounced "bye". A bumper sticker that reads "Kerry Bye" ain't going to work. It just looks wrong too. Kerry/Bayh ...C'mon.

Secondly, he named one of his sons Beau. Beau Bayh. That's just cruel if you ask me.

[TheBigDemo]

33. How about this then, Kerry says Bayh to Bush. Spin any way you want

[schultzee]

26. Bayh is a DLC PIG.

[AntiCoup2K4]

30. Can't say it any better than that.

n/t

[TheBigDemo]

32. All the more likely he is to be picked

[Gore1FL]

73. Assuming we stick to 40 year old Conventional Wisdom

Consdiering in that time frame we held the WH for only 40% of the time, and only 10% of those got a second term, perhaps it is time we consider that strategy foolhardy.

The dems ran in 2002 as moderates, and it worked so well we lost the Senate. Whay make the same mistake again?

[JVS]

74. Has the Simpsons taught you nothing?

Kang said "The politics of failure have failed. We need to make them work again." Words as true today as when they were spoken.

[katieforeman]

37. Completely disagree about Bye.

Do you think people in OH will vote Kerry/Bayh because Bayh is from IN? I grew up in OH and still spend a lot of time there. From my experience, most people have not heard of him and would not be inclined to vote for Kerry just because his runningmate is from IN.

People don't vote for Vice-President. They vote for President. The main roles of the VP are to: 1.)sell Kerry to voters on the campaign trail 2.)help create a positive image of Kerry in voter's minds through close association.

Edwards is bar none the best campaigner in the party today. This helps the ticket in all of the battleground states. Edwards has also demonstrated appeal to disaffected Republicans and Independents in the primary process. Like Kerry, Edwards was beating Bush by about 10 points in national polls demonstrating national appeal in all of the battleground states. Also, because of his humble origins and because he and Kerry were colleagues in the Senate and on the campaign trail together, Edwards is in a uniquely qualified to vouch for Kerry with working class Americans.

[TheBigDemo]

41. Edwards would bring nothing, and is not ready to be President

Bayh is. If people cared about Humble origins they would not have voted for Bush, Gore, and Kerry. All elitist families.

Bayh would add moderate voters to the ticket.

[elsiesummers]

46. Bayh certainly reinforces the elitist charge.

Son of a Senator.

Yeah this is just what Kerry needs.

Lets see how Nader does with Bayh as veep.

BTW, because of Edwards long standing as a fighter against corporate malfeasance to benefit the consumer, he helps with the Nader voter.

Nader even admitted he admires John Edwards on MTP, said Edwards is "part of a corrupt system" (as in the whole political system) but had to admit that Edwards as an individual is anti-corporate.

You are overestimating Bayh. You have given no evidence that he can bring Ohio and readily admit he doesn't bring Indiana.

[katieforeman]

49. Edwards was beating Bush by about 10 points

in national polls. That would not have been true if people didn't think Edwards was ready to be President.

Edwards must have been doing well with moderate voters to be polling above 50% in national polls. Also he did very well with Independents and disaffected voters in the primaries.

Anecdotally, I've spoken with moderate and idependent voters in OH who told me they like Edwards and the rabid Republicans don't hate him like they hate Kerry.

[TheBigDemo]

50. Well, they sure didn't vote for him in Ohio did they?

Bayh is more popular. Bayh has not spent millions on ads in the recent months. But Bayh most be doing something right, he is the only Democratic Senator in the area, and in a Republican State. He has lots of money too.

[katieforeman]

52. Democratic primary voters who had some misguided

belief that Kerry was more electable voted for Kerry over Edwards. I don't know a single person who voted for Kerry that didn't also tell me they liked Edwards for VP.

[ShaneGR]

54. Actually, almost 40% did, AND, he won the biggest Dem countty

Summit County, please learn before you speak.

[TheBigDemo]

57. Edwards got Slaughtered in Ohio, Please learn more before you speak

Edwards spent most his time and money in that county, that is why he was only beat 40-60 there.

[ShaneGR]

58. Once again, WRONG

Edwards NEVER went to Summit County, ever. Never even set foot there. And it wasn't 60-40. The combined Dean, Kucinich, Clark vote made up about 15-20%.

You're obviously not from Ohio. So don't tell me what I know is false.

[cosmokramer]

135. I am from Ohio, and I will tell you what you 'know ' is false because it

is completely FALSE. If you are going to argue with statistics and facts, I suggest you get them first.

First, Summit County is not the biggest Democratic county in Ohio...Cuyahoga County has that distinction.

Second, EDWARDS LOST BIG TIME IN SUMMIT AND CUYAHOGA COUNTY.

Cuyahoga (1453 of 1453 Precincts Reporting) • State Results • Exit Poll
Candidate Votes V%
John KERRY 98366 48%
John EDWARDS 49053 24%
Dennis KUCINICH 48456 24%
Howard DEAN 3510 2%
Joe LIEBERMAN 1841 1%
Wesley CLARK 1176 1%
Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. 630 0%


Summit (505 of 505 Precincts Reporting) • State Results • Exit Poll
Candidate Votes V%
John KERRY 34523 52%
John EDWARDS 21851 33%
Dennis KUCINICH 7795 12%
Howard DEAN 1205 2%
Joe LIEBERMAN 583 1%
Wesley CLARK 452 0%
Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. 172 0%

[DemDogs]

143. Where did swing votes go?

Dems will win the Democratic votes. Who can help with the swing votes? Independents, Reagan Republicans. Edwards won 'em in Ohio and across the country. He helps win the votes we need to win in rural areas, too. And if Novak means anything to you (and he doesn't mean much to me) he says NC is on the verge of switching back to Democratic -- and Edwards can help with that.

[cosmokramer]

145. We didn't have enough swing votes to...

...get an accurate picture of what is going on in rural areas of Ohio.

I am IN Ohio, and a party activist here. Edwards was not popular with anyone really. He had no endorsements here. He was just the 'alternate' candidate. His crowds were TINY, and none of the union halls would give him space here for speeches. Clark, on the other hand, had tons of Ohio endorsements and support--after he dropped, those persons voted Kerry, and the ground troops began working for Kerry. Instant campaign, instant support, instant MONEY.

Edwards simply is NOT the right choice for Ohio, and neither is Bayh. There are far more qualified moderates out there than these two.

[Edwards4President]

151. Please be accurate

Edwards was quite popular with the unions in Ohio, especially considering that the national unions endorsed Kerry.

Perhaps you missed his standing room only rally at the Teamster Hall in Youngstown, Ohio - yes, the Teamsters, who endorsed Kerry. Edwards packed 700 people into a hall normally meant to hold 200. His visit to Mahoning County was such a hit with the locals that Kerry cancelled his rally in Youngstown two days later, apparently because of concerns that he would not be able to do as well as Edwards.

Moreover, Edwards did pick up endorsements in Ohio, such as the president of Ohioans for Dean and Cuyahoga County's most influential ministers. And, you failed to note that Edwards wasn't the only one who had difficulty getting key endorsements. Kerry also had great difficulty pulling important endorsement - largely because so many leading Democrats from northeastern Ohio had either endorsed Dennis Kucinich (they needed to take care of their local politics, after all) or didn't endorse anyone at all, in order not to appear to undercut Kucinich.

Yes, Edwards was beaten in Ohio, but please don't characterize his reception there as something it wasn't.

[cosmokramer]

155. It is a fact that in

Southwestern Ohio, ALL of the union halls refused him space. He had to have his rally at an airport because NONE of the unions here would give him any of their space (out of some 50 halls). Southwest Ohio is significantly more moderate than northeast Ohio, so the premise that Edwards would somehow appeal to more moderate democrats is bogus.

Yeah, the President of Ohioans for Dean was a real prize, and one county's small group of ministers. Please, don't characterize that as something major, because it isn't. Clark, at least, had the endorsement of some superdelegates, and dozens of elected politicians (including some in Cuyahoga County--they didn't all hold back to appease Kucinich).

Edwards wasn't only BEAT in Ohio, he was creamed. He adds nothing to a ticket with Kerry as far as Ohio is concerned. Just another 'average' pick.

[Edwards4President]

161. Oh, so it's just in SOUTHWESTERN Ohio, not the whole state

In other words, your claim that "none of the union halls would give him space here for speeches" wasn't true.

And your claim that Edwards "had no endorsements here" was also untrue, despite your backpedaling efforts to discount the endorsements he did receive. You obviously know little about Cuyahoga County - the state's largest county - and the imporance of the leaders of the largest group of African American ministers in the state. Otherwise, you would not so foolishly dismiss them as "one county's small group of ministers." Your spurious claim says more about your grasp of the state's politics (or lack thereof) and players than it does about Edwards or the support he had in the state.

Moreover, I am very familiar with Edwards' Ohio campaign and know first hand that he appeared at an airport in southwestern Ohio, not because he couldn't get a union hall, but because he was doing a "flyaround" whereby he appeared at airports around the state in order to hit more parts of the state in a much shorter time. For someone claiming to be a party activist so familiar with the logistics of the Edwards campaign, you seem woefully out of the loop since, if you were so well connected, you would certainly have known this.

And, before you continue lecturing us about Southwestern Ohio and claiming he had "no endorsements here," perhaps you should do some homework. Had you done so, you would have known that, among other things, the largest paper in Southwestern Ohio endorsed John Edwards.

And do, pray tell, share with us all of the heavy hitting endorsements that Clark got in Ohio that he eventually turned over to Kerry? Name the "dozens of elected politicians (including some in Cuyahoga County) who endorsed Clark. Or, I'll make it easier. Name ONE dozen of them.

Your hatred of John Edwards is not only palpable, it has obviously blinded you to facts and seems to have made you quite willing to make make statements with no facts to back them up. As I said, there's no question that Edwards lost Ohio - no one is claiming otherwise. But your attempts to denigrate him and his campaign by arguing it was far less than it was - like most of your attacks on him - do nothing to help your candidate.

[cosmokramer]

162. That story was given by the EDWARDS campaign...

"Moreover, I am very familiar with Edwards' Ohio campaign and know first hand that he appeared at an airport in southwestern Ohio, not because he couldn't get a union hall, but because he was doing a "flyaround" whereby he appeared at airports around the state in order to hit more parts of the state in a much shorter time. Whoever is giving you your information is not telling you the whole story."

NOT according to the Edwards campaign. An EDWARDS CAMPAIGN worker told me this.

And yes, I personally would not vote for Edwards, but I am reporting what I have seen on the ground HERE in my section of Ohio.

If you were paying attention, perhaps you would have noticed that the premise of the original question was that Edwards did extremely well with moderate voters in Ohio, and that he would ADD voters because of this, and that is simply NOT TRUE. He did not do particularly well with moderate voters in Ohio. Not at all.

So perhaps you are entirely missing the point.

[Edwards4President]

165. I'm not missing your point at all

I simply pointed out that your claims that Edwards had no support, no endorsements, couldn't get a union hall, couldn't fill a venue, etc. were not accurate. And they aren't, as I have clearly demonstrated.

And, I'm not the least bit impressed that an Edwards campaign worker gave you this incorrect information. As I said, I know for a fact that it is not true. Certainly you - being a party insider and all - understand that being an Edwards campaign worker is NOT the same as being the Edwards campaign. There was only one Edwards staffer in your part of the state and I sincerely doubt that he gave you this flawed information since, not only was he directly involved in the planning of Edwards' airport event and knew exactly why the airport was chosen as the site, he would not have been so indiscreet as to share such information, even if true, with a local party activist not closely affiliated with the Edwards campaign - especially one as likely to be openly hostile to our candidate as you seem to be. Everone else working on the campaign was a local volunteer, none of whom spoke for or officially worked for the campaign. So the fact that someone told you that Edwards did an event at the airport because he couldn't get a union hall doesn't mean diddly - whoever told you that didn't know what they were talking about.

You also claimed that Clark had "dozens" of endorsements throughout the state. I asked you to name one dozen. You have yet to do that. Probably because you can't.

Bottom line - your points would go over much better if you weren't so hell bent on taking cheap shots at Edwards that are clearly premised upon false information and ridiculous exaggerations. If you want to argue that he didn't do well with moderate voters, make your point. If you want to contend that Clark or Kerry had more endorsements, be my guest. But basing your argument on hyperbolic and easily refuged claims such as those you consistently make only serve to further evidence the complete unreliability of your points.

[cosmokramer]

168. Just from my area ... unless * YES, I can name at least a dozen.

Michael Coleman – Ohio, Mayor of Columbus, State Chairman*
Judy Dodge – Ohio, Montgomery County Recorder
Matt Joseph – Ohio, Dayton City Commissioner
Hugh Quill – Ohio, Montgomery County Treasurer
Tom Roberts – Ohio, State Senator
James Rokakis – Ohio, Cuyahoga County Treasurer*
Dixie Allen - Ohio, State Rep
Paul Leonard - Ohio, State Party Member, former Mayor of Dayton, former State Rep, and former Lt. Gov. of Ohio
Charles Hart - State Rep
Jane Mitakides - 3rd CD Congress
Paul Woodie - City Manager
Karen Levin - Levin Foundation
Mike Adler - Founder of Moto Photo
Bill Seagraves - VFW State Judge Advocate, Commander
Mike Gardner - Chairman, Greene Co. Dems
Steve Nutt - Dir. of Econ. Dev.

[Edwards4President]

176. You really should do your homework.

Where did you scrape up this list? It is quite inaccurate. Did you know that when you posted it or did you just not bother to check?

First, while you produced a long list purporting to show a dozen "elected politicians" who endorsed Clark and then switched to Kerry, only seven of the people you listed - Coleman, Dodge, Joseph, Quill, Roberts, Rokakis, and Allen - are actually elected officials. The rest are either former (in some cases VERY former) elected officials, or private citizens who have never held elected office.

For example, Jane Mitakides, despite your representation, does not represent the 3rd Congressional District nor is she even an elected officials. She is a CANDIDATE, running in her first political race.

And, similarly, Charles Hart is NOT a state representative. Like, Mitakides, he is a CANDIDATE. He's running for the State Senate.

And Paul Woodie is NOT and never has been a city manager. He's Dayton's FORMER budget director - not an elected position - and doesn't even hold THAT job anymore.

Moreover, even the seven elected officials you listed did not all switch to Kerry. For example, Dixie Allen endorsed Edwards.

In other words, your information is completely wrong. Maybe you should stop before you dig yourself in any deeper.

[spooky3]

177. Excellent work, Edwards4President. Your posts are great. Thanks.

[Edwards4President]

178. Thanks. n/t

[cosmokramer]

180. Not so fast.

She was wrong. I answered the question.

[cosmokramer]

179. This was your question:

"You also claimed that Clark had "dozens" of endorsements throughout the state. I asked you to name one dozen. You have yet to do that. Probably because you can't."

Above was my answer. I named more than a dozen.

Now, if you want me to list elected officials ONLY, statewide, I will do that. I will get the list from all of my associates statewide, and proudly post it in a thread here. But I know I don't need to do that, because we both know I am right.

You didn't ask me to list elected officials ONLY (see above--your own words).

Now, since you obviously think you are the authority on endorsements, can you list all of Edwards endorsements from ELECTED OFFICIALS ONLY who did not endorse Clark or another candidate first? Hmm?

[Edwards4President]

181. Oh, please . . .

Let's go to the videotape . . .

You stated: "Clark, on the other hand, had tons of Ohio endorsements and support--after he dropped, those persons voted Kerry, and the ground troops began working for Kerry. "

and then you added, for good measure: "Clark, at least, had the endorsement of some superdelegates, and dozens of elected politicians (including some in Cuyahoga County--they didn't all hold back to appease Kucinich)."

So, I asked you: to {n}ame the "dozens of elected politicians (including some in Cuyahoga County) who endorsed Clark. Or, I'll make it easier. Name ONE dozen of them."

And when you ignored the request, I tried again: "You also claimed that Clark had 'dozens' of endorsements throughout the state. I asked you to name one dozen. You have yet to do that. Probably because you can't.

You responded with a list of a 16 names, 10 of whom you claimed were elected officials. I simply pointed out that only seven of those persons were elected officials and all of them were not Clark-turned-Kerry supporters.

You claimed that dozens of elected officials in Ohio endorsed Clark and then switched to Kerry. When asked for details, you posted incorrect information. Your attempts to argue that you made no such claim are laughable, especially given the ease with which anyone can scroll back a few posts and verify exactly what you wrote.

[cosmokramer]

184. And your list? You are now at the point of mincing words to try

and make a point, but you are entirely missing the point:

WHERE ARE ALL THE EDWARDS ENDORSEMENTS FROM OHIO from people who did not previously endorse another candidate? Show me how terribly successful his efforts were here. Was this not the core debate?

They weren't successful. And in your zeal to try and promote your candidate's 'success', you have proven he had none.

Have a pleasant day...you are wasting my time.

[Edwards4President]

185. Not gonna dance to your "let's change the subject" tune

I did not make any such claim, therefore, I have no intention of acquiescing to your demand that I produce the "proof" you are now demanding in order to save face.

Bottom line - you made some claims. You were not only unable to back them up, but produced bogus information as "support." Trying to change the subject gets you nowhere. Everyone here can see you're busted. I think you see it, too.

Now, run along and try to convince someone else that you know what you're talking about. I already know better.

[cosmokramer]

186. I do know what I am talking about.

Unfortunately, you don't.

Watch the threads, Dearie, there will be a list of ALL of Clark's Ohio endorsements, elected and otherwise, coming this way.

Hope you one day get over your zealous lust for the lawyer.

[cosmokramer]

137. you are correct....

...Edwards got creamed in Ohio. And Summit County is NOT the largest Democratic county in Ohio. Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) is the largest. Edwards DID visit Cuyahoga County and he got really creamed there. Heck, he got creamed EVERYWHERE in Ohio.

[cosmokramer]

133. Actually, you should learn before your speak...

...the biggest Dem county in Ohio is the Cleveland area and Cuyahoga County, not Summit County.

And Edwards did not win Summit County either. He lost it by 19%!


Summit (505 of 505 Precincts Reporting) • State Results • Exit Poll
Candidate Votes V%
John KERRY 34523 52%
John EDWARDS 21851 33%
Dennis KUCINICH 7795 12%
Howard DEAN 1205 2%
Joe LIEBERMAN 583 1%
Wesley CLARK 452 0%
Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. 172 0%


Cuyahoga (1453 of 1453 Precincts Reporting) • State Results • Exit Poll
Candidate Votes V%
John KERRY 98366 48%
John EDWARDS 49053 24%
Dennis KUCINICH 48456 24%
Howard DEAN 3510 2%
Joe LIEBERMAN 1841 1%
Wesley CLARK 1176 1%
Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. 630 0%

SO YOU ARE WRONG ON ALL COUNTS.

[Tom Rinaldo]

89. Edwards was a disappointment on Super Tuesday

He kept wanting to go one and one on Kerry, well he essentially got it. He couldn't even win the one state in the South, and elsewhere he got slaughtered. This is after Edwards had a solid month of positive press. Edwards was primarily a regional candidate. Had Clark stayed in the race Edwards would not have been impressive in Wisconsin either where Clark had always been running stronger than Edwards.

[katieforeman]

112. Edwards is not a regional candidate.

He was beating Bush in national polls by about ten points, (about the same as Kerry). That wouldn't be true if he were a regional candidate.

Exit polls show a good chunk of primary voters were voting for what they perceived to be Kerry's electability. In the general election voters will be voting for the package. Kerry/Edwards is a better brand than Kerry/Gephart, Kerry/Bayh, or Kerry/Clark.

I don't know a single Democrat in Oh who didn't either want Edwards for VP or President. Furthermore, Edwards did very well in IA and WI, are these states in the South?

[Padraig18]

117. Almost every Democrat I talk to in IL thinks..

...that Edwards would be Kerry's best choice for VP. People here REALLY like him.

[Tom Rinaldo]

136. Edwards didn't have to compete with Clark

In either Iowa or Wisconsin, that's one reason why he was able to do better there. Edwards rarely beat Clark outside of the South, Clark did much better in the West and South West, and edged him out in New Hampshire of course.

[jenk]

160. there was a reason Clark didn't compete in Iowa

because he was doing diddly squat in the polls.

look at the popular vote count up until clark dropped out, Edwards was far ahead.

[LandOLincoln]

166. Nonsense. Clark didn't compete in Iowa because

he got into the race too late, and Iowa looked to be a contest between Dean and Gephardt anyway.

Kerry and Edwards were both polling in the single digits before Iowa. It was Iowa, and Iowa alone, that gave Edwards the Mo to pull ahead of Clark.

[Carolina]

102. right on, Katie

Many red state folk loathe Kerry as much as we loathe Bush. Pair patrician Kerry with boring to the senate-born Bayh, repuke-lite Breaux, Mr. Been-In-Washington-Too-Long Gephardt and we lose big time.

It's got to be someone with broad appeal who's already known and liked and who has demonstrated vote-getting ability with polling above Bush.

Edward's humble roots, American dream story and charisma add tremedously to Kerry. Kerry-Edwards is the WINNING ticket.

[fujiyama]

42. I agree -- he's the best

speaker/ campaigner our party's got. Clark has the better resume, but Edwards is still a better campaigner.

[JohnKleeb]

45. two americas stump speech

:9
good stuff
I would prefer Kerry-Edwards to Kerry-Bayh without a doubt. Maybe Kerry-Birch Bayh though :D. His father was more liberal.

[TheBigDemo]

51. I would prefer a Clark/Kucinich Ticket, but it ain't going to win would it

I am taking what would win, not what we want. I love Clark and Kucinich.

[JohnKleeb]

55. Kerry-Kucinich

:shrug:
Personally I thik youre wrong about Bayh. Its good though because Bayh is agh.

[lcordero]

40. a DLCer with a DLC chairman

The last "moderate democrat" in the white house gave us "welfare reform", the one before that gave us restrictions on the woman's right to choose.

What's next?
The right to choose being completely gone along with a gun ban from coast to coast?!!?!?

[Baconfoot]

56. Even I'M not going to respond to this & I don't even have 200 posts yet.nt

[dkf]

59. Ugh.. Could you possibly find a ticket more repulsive to me?

I'd have to go with a blank vote or write in someone if that is my choice.

[TheBigDemo]

60. Kerry/Bayh or Bush/Cheney. That is your choice. Sorry, My Fav would be

Clark/Kucinich. Or Hillary/CLark. But it going to happen. But I want Bush out.

[RainDog]

71. Bayh is hugely popular in Indiana?

Bayh is considered an embarrassment to his father by many in Indiana...his father had the guts to speak out against Vietnam.

Bayh looks like a toady to big money to lots of people in Indiana (which is where I've lived for seventeen years now.)

Lugar gets more respect in Indiana, and came out in opposition to the marriage amendment and tried to work with Biden to stop Bush's March (of folly) war from going forward without further debate. Bayh was one of the toads making sure he was standing beside Bush for the photo op which quashed the Lugar/Biden move.

Around here, Bayh looks like he's in the pocket of big biz, especiallly Eli Lilly. Indiana has watched as jobs have disappeared in the state. Neither he, nor the governor did anything to oppose the hated "nafta highway" through southern Indiana.

What has Bayh done, other than head the DLC, to take a stand for anything? He is not seen as a big supporter of the environment, again in a state which has a big, big southern section which has concerns about fragile karsts and family farms.

He's another rich white guy who has no populist appeal. He's called "Ken" in derision around here...as in Barbie and Ken.

Knowing all these things...yeah, it seems like he's be the perfect candidate for the out-of-touch dem establishment...I do not know one person who voted for Gore because Lieberman was on the ticket...however, I know quite a few who saw Gore's right-of-center v.p. and decided that voting Green made more sense.

Bayh is that same sort of conservative, and anyone who thinks they're going to win this election by being lukewarm Bush is fooling themselves, imo.

How many people in this nation are not even registered to vote? How many people don't bother? Why don't the dems do something really wild and actually work to increase the number of voters? Bayh has no appeal for this sort of idea.

He's politics as usual...and to me, he's a perfect example of what's WRONG with the Senate today.

[Finch]

61. Bill Nelson...

...isnt in experienced.. he was in the House of Representatives from 1979-1991, Ran unsuccessfully for Gov in the early 1990's, was in Florida state government from 1995-2000 and got elected to the senate in 2000... seems pretty experienced to me... but if we can get Bayh to lighten up a bit and sparkle a bit on TV then I'd say him over Nelson in a shot because I'd rather keep Nelson's senate seat however if Bayh remains... well... Bayh like in his style then i still say Nelson...

[Gore1FL]

62. Why Bayh when you can rent?

I think Bayh would be a political disaster, frankly. Lieberman II, just when you thoyught it was safe to go back into politics.

[DaveSZ]

67. No way

people in Ohio know who Bayh is.

And there's no way Kerry will ever win Indiana either.

Didn't FDR only win that state once? LOl.


Edwards is the best speaker I think I've ever heard in my life.

He's better than Clinton imo, or at least as good. Edwards will be able to connect with people who have lost their jobs, or fear losing their jobs. Then they will come to our camp.

[Gore1FL]

68. Did youu mean to respond to me? We seem to agree

n/t

[Carolina]

107. hey Gore1FL

I love your post, your sig line and in that context, the Spongebob avatar is perfect! LOL

[NightNurse]

65. I think your first sentence is specious at best.

:wtf: IMHO, that is.

[DannyRed]

69. Cleland, Glenn, Richardson

Warner, Harkin...


Evan Bayh?

No wayh!

[mitchtv]

167. Clark or Richardson Please

Viva la Raza- NM, AZ, NV BYE Bayh

[Merlin]

70. Sorry. I don't Bayh it. It's going to be Clark. Put it in the bank.

At some point much further down the road, Kerry will signal that it's Clark. Why? Numerous reasons.

Of all the candidates, Clark has the most potential to pick up swing votes in the South. He's popular with the male mindset. He's obviously bright--and Kerry respects intellect (another perceived weakness of Edwards)--he's Presidential, and he's not a threat to other potential future candidates, because he's too old to succeed Kerry in 8 years. Thus he's perfectly acceptable to--even favored by--the Clinton wing of the party.

And Clark helps Kerry with his biggest perceived weakness--the "War on Terror." Polls published today say the public favors Bush to handle the war by a 68-30 margin. With Clark on board, that number begins to flip.

This is one I'm relatively sure of. I don't know if Kerry realizes it yet. But he's going with Wes.

[DannyRed]

76. Disagreement here.

This is all my own opinion, flame me if you like.

Clark ran for president mainly in hopes of "showing his chops" to the the eventual winner, who would then pick him for VP.

Clark's campaign was not well run, well managed or well thought out. And Clark himself diidn't really catch fire...in fact if you look at the polling on Clark when he entered, track those polls through the campaign, and compare to the final results for Clark in the primaries where he competed...the only candidate who sank faster was Dean...and in some cases, Clark sank faster.

Clark will not be picked for Veep.

Edwards has a better shot...but I do not think Edwards will get it either.

My hunch is that it will go to a well-known southerner OTHER than Edwards, like Cleland...or to a well-known midwesterner or Sunbelt moderate...Like a Harken, a Vilsack, or a Richardson.

Warner has a shot, Rendell has a shot.

Bayh, Gephardt, Edwards, Clark, and the rest are probably long shots.

[Merlin]

87. You're reading the wrong tea leaves

True Clark didn't fair well against a field of well known politicians all with significant, established credentials to appeal to their own bases within the Democratic party.

But in polls of Republicans and Independents -- especially males and especially Southerners, Clark is not simply popular, he actually draws people away from Bush.

I can't emphasize enough the degree to which the Kerry people will become concerned by the fact that all polls show Bush with a huge lead on issues of:
--War on Terrorism
--Iraq
--National Security generally
So long as Bush is well out in front in these areas, Kerry is not safe from a late barrage of Bush garbage. The antidote is a 4-star on the ticket.

The other names that are glibbly mentioned do not play out all that well. Rendell is in his first term, and--though personable--is open to criticism for being unrealistic about what he can accomplish poltically--particularly in education funding and the malpractice crisis. Max Clelland may not even bring his home state. Ditto with Graham. Richardson brings the Hispanic vote which we already have. Vilsack? Small state. Harken? Too liberal for general consumption. Warner? Like Rendell, an unproven first term governor. Bayh? Good God is he boring! And he would infuriate much of the base, just like Gephardt or Lieberman would.

Plus, I believe in the general rule that a liberal should never have a far more conservative running mate. It's not good for the life expectancy. I believe Kerry subscribes to this also, as I'm sure his good friend Ted Kennedy does.

It'll be Clark. It'll be a great ticket.

[Auntie Bush]

110. I'll Bayh that! So true and well said. n/t

[JCMach1]

75. Bayh would completely turn me off...

I am true to the Dems. to a fault, but that would be the final straw...

[TheBigDemo]

119. All the more reason it would be Bayh

Kerry is for mainstream Dems. Bayh attracts moderates and Republicans. Winning ticket. Kerry/Bayh would whip Bush/Cheney, that is the goal isn't it?

[bowens43]

77. I disagree.

It wouldn't have made sense for Kerry to have named a VP already. He has to use the process to remain in the news. I don't think we'll see a selection until the convention. The selection process is free air time, something he will desperately need.

[in_cog_ni_to]

78. Bayh is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too conservative, n/t

[Bread and Circus]

80. Bayh who?

[PATRICK]

86. Of course he hasn't named anyone!

Besides removing the last piece of drama and outreach IF it was Edwards all along then the GOP will have two targets in the Senate for those trap sessions when they have to come back for tough votes.

he might end up with your sister as Veep, but right now there are so many reasons NOT to jump the gun we shouldn't even have to post any. Everyone has reasons(some of them sane) as to who would be a good pick, but it just happens to be Kerry's and the candidate's decision.

Grousing that it will be Bayh just to darken my day is a waste of time. He might as well pick Daschel or Lieberman again. This is almost as horrendous as the "advice" and prognostications of GOP pundits.

[lastliberalintexas]

90. Evan Bayh for VP?

Only if you actually *want* the Greens to get that magic 5%. Heck, with Bayh on the ticket, the Greens might break double digits.

[Carolina]

91. Evan Bayh ???

He was supposed to be a rising star and then he spoke at the last convention .... Fade to obscurity.

Bayh should stay in the Senate since we will need as many Dem Senators as possible.

Kerry-Bayh might as well read Kerry-GoodBYE.

[w4rma]

93. Polls say folks want Edwards.

Polls give a Kerry/Edwards ticket the largest (or tied for largest) lead against Bush than any other ticket.

[Padraig18]

95. It'll be Edwards or Breaux

Edwards on the ticket has the highest appeal among Democrats, and a moderate Southerner is a 'winning addition' to our ticket. Ask yourself this: when was the last time we won the Presidency without a Southerner on the ticket?

[Carolina]

104. Breaux ...

:puke:

Repuke-lite will not help us win over real repukes. Remember 2002?!
Let Breaux retire to his desired whoredom of lobbyist.

[Padraig18]

113. heh.

Edwards would be my #1 choice of that duo, of course. :)

[JohnKleeb]

129. been a while

but I really dont see him choosing Breaux. Breaux isnt exactly pro choice and Kerry wants his justices to believe in upholding RoeVWade, yes both him and Kucinich share this, I would like Edwards, or a midwesterner. My governor could be handy.

[cosmokramer]

146. Only, only, only

because Edwards has had the media spot light for the last few weeks.

He lost Ohio by a landslide and was not well received here.

I guarantee he will NOT be VP--the qualifications have been made by the Kerry campaign, and he simply does not meet them.

No FP experience, and legislative only experience. Not going to happen.

[The Sushi Bandit]

96. Who in the F*ck is Evan Bayh?

if I dont know, he cant help the ticket!

[Padraig18]

99. Sen. from Indiana.

Former governor of IN, and son of the late Burch Bayh, who was also a Democratic senator from IN...

[dave29]

97. Bayh = more votes for Nader

simple.

[cosmokramer]

100. I agree that Edwards will not be it. Neither will Bayh, though.

[goodhue]

101. Bayh won't help much

He is really unknown outside of Indiana and the DC DNC/DLC set. Edwards would be more helpful in OH, MO, MI, WI, MN, IA than Bayh because the voters know him due to his recent campaign. Bayh has little or no name recognition here in MN.

[Catherine Vincent]

109. I hope he doesn't choose a weak running mate

like Gore did.

[ChiefJoseph]

111. I don't think it will be Edwards either.

Kerry is not going to pick someone who will outshine him everywhere he goes.

[rocktivity]

124. Edwards gives us an automatic leg up on 2012

Bayh would be a quick fix--our VP not only needs to help us win now, but dig the trenches for 2012, too. Bayh is the right age and from the right part of the country, but he'd he lucky if he got half the mainstream media exposure that Kuchinch did.

Edwards has a built-in national base which allows him to not rely on right-wing media exposure. And let his personality "outshine" Kerry's--after four years of Bush's frat bratting, Kerry SHOULD come across as comforting, stable, thoughtful, wise.

The 2004 Dem VP must be the 2012 Dem frontrunner because it will give the Repubs a formidable obstacle and make the Dems look united and in control. The days of picking a passive low-key no-name for VP have gone the way of the gaslight.

:headbang:
rocknation

[Carolina]

127. and that's one of his problems

He needs someone with the charm and charisma he lacks. After all haven't we learned that people vote on gut instinct for the guy they like; that people vote for the persona not the resume; that elections are indeed popularity contests.

Kerry better lose the ego and pick someone who can HELP him win so that in the end he'll be Mr. President.

[TheBigDemo]

132. That is horrible advice. You don't want to be upstaged by your VP

I recently saw on TV that people do consider experience important. That is why they like Edwards more but voted for Kerry. I think having a VP that is better liked than you is a horrible way to get votes. It shows the voters that even your VP is better than you. Not good.

[OutlawCorporatePolls]

114. sshhhhh.. there is a new movement afoot..

[democratreformed]

115. Oh my gosh!

That's so funny. William Hung is great!

[genius]

122. If Evan Bayh is the VP nominee, Kerry has lost my vote.

With the voting irregularities, it doesn't matter. If VCIAA doesn't pass, we don't have a chance.

[TheBigDemo]

130. Have fun voting for Bush/Cheney I am ABB, Who cares who is VP

Really, they don't do diddly unless the Prez says. I would keep Cheney as VP if it meant Kerry was the Prez and not Bush. He isn't any worse than Lieberman.

[ButterflyBlood]

128. why SC and nowhere else in the south?

I quit reading there. SC is one of the conservative southern states, probably the most except for Mississippi and Alabama. If we have a shot at SC we certainly have a shot at Louisiana, Arkansas, and the slightly more liberal NC.

Bayh will not win Indiana and he will not help with Ohio either. The midwest is not as regionalistic as the south, and won't vote for someone just because they're from a neighboring state. How many people in Ohio even know who Bayh is?

[TheBigDemo]

131. It is not if Ohio knows Bayh, it is if Bayh knows Ohio, and he does

If only 1% of the people vote for Bayh because he is from nearby, that is enough to win all 21 electoral votes from the state. Do you think Bayh knows Ohio enough to get 1% more of the vote? I think he does. He is also loaded.

[salin]

149. did you check out the thread with Ohioans re: Bayh

not a one thinks Bayh does a thing for the ticket. Both Ohioans and Hoosiers indicated that the niether state has NO influence on the other. So okay - you like Bayh enough to stretch the case a bit. Thats your business.

But to those of us familiar with him, who know he doesn't bring Indiana, and to those who live in Ohio who know he is unknown and holds no promise, we think he is an awful choice as he brings NOTHING of value to the ticket. No electoral votes. So to us... Bayh = more likely Bush win.

[ButterflyBlood]

170. what do you mean by Bayh knows Ohio?

first of all, the part of Ohio that borders Indiana is very heavily Republican. The Democratic strength is mostly in the west and north, where Bayh doesn't have as much knowledge of.

But perhaps most importantly, BAYH'S POLICIES WON'T HELP IN OHIO. He's a free trader who voted for *'s tax cuts. How would a labor heavy protectionist state like Ohio like that? A strong protectionist will help in Ohio, not the DLC chairman.

[flaminbats]

138. I still remember the names kicked around just before Clinton picked Gore

Evan Bayh who was still Governor
Bob Graham who many felt was not seriously being considered as another southerner..
Lee Hamilton a Congressman from Indiana
Harris Wofford from Pennsylvania

and the afternoon before Clinton announced Gore in a surprise to everyone...he had a meeting with Senator Bob Kerrey, which landed those two on that evening's papers!

[mikehiggins]

139. Gonna be Clark at the end of the day. Honest.

Watch him stumping for Kerry, on tv and on the street.

He just sent out an email to supporters asking them (us) to contribute to Kerry's campaign. Since he asked, I'm going to do it though I'll have to take some Dramamine to settle my stomach when writing the check.

Anyone want to mention other defeated primary opponents who actually went out and worked hard for the guy who beat him? I mean ACTUALLY going out and working the precincts, as opposed to standing next to the winner and smiling. I can't. I don't think it's happened in my lifetime. Something new? Could be.

It's a new day.

[cosmokramer]

141. Clark will be in Ohio next week.

Details tomorrow.

He will be stumping and raising funds for Kerry, and promoting other democrats throughout the state.

Bayh is not. Edwards is not. Gep DID before Super Tuesday.

Clark is expected to draw HUGE crowds to these events, just as he always has.

I agree, at the end of the day, it will be Clark.

[DemDogs]

142. Bayh voted for the tax cuts -- Both Times! (n/t)

[TomSeaver]

144. There is NO WAY Bayh

will be the VP. The guy voted for the tax cuts, the war, and AGAINST ABORTION- A serious no-no to a democratic ticket. NO WAY

[TheBigDemo]

164. Actually, that is another lie. He voted against both of Bush's tax cuts.

Nice try though

[salin]

150. Bwahahahaha tell us more

we need a good chuckle in this forum from time to time.

[jmoss]

153. The logic in this post is flawed...regardless of who John Kerry picks 4 VP

It is true that John Kerry will need to take full advantage of "free-media" throughout the campaign, as you have pointed out, to counteract GW's "war-chest" he must spend by July. There was oodles of free media coverage during the primary races, and will continue to be some more as the official polls come in from FL, PA, TX, etc. It would be politically foolish to show his cards now, eliminating the "suspense" factor from the VP selection process, and disallowing an additional media frenzy to occur as Kerry becomes closer to his decision, "releasiing" a short list to the media, having the candidates all over the various news outlets, and finally, the big news day when he announces his running mate--all of which will occur sometime (but not too far from) the DNC convention.

Hence, thinking that John Edwards is not being considered for the VP candidacy, simply because John Kerry "would have announced this already", is illogical if you accept the premise that Sen. Kerry & his advisors are master campaigners--they know how to make the media work for them, not control their actions.

[salin]

163. Yes logic

and lack of willing to get into discourse on points raised questioning the logic are a hallmark of the Orig. Post and this thread.

[WI_DEM]

152. Kerry would not have chosen a VP yet regardless of Edwards

Nobody has chosen a VP this early in the contest. It used to be they would wait until the convention, but now they make a big show of speculation of who the VP is and usually announce it only a few weeks prior to the convenion. It doesn't make any sence for Kerry to name a VP yet--he needs to have this process dominate the news especially into the summer. Look for him to announce a VP in late June or early July--before the convention.

[TomSeaver]

154. Choosing Bayh as a running mate

is laughable. I wonder do people looks at the records of these people before they post these things. This guy Bayh is in no way going to be on the ticket with his stance on abortion

[Hippo_Tron]

156. Arkansas might go to Kerry...

Pick up that and New Hampshire and there's your election, no Ohio and no Florida.

[ButterflyBlood]

169. even more likely

Nevada + West Virginia. Don't even need NH, although it wouldn't hurt.

[TheBigDemo]

174. More likely he would lose one. Then what?

[Vadem]

175. If Evan Bayh is the VP nominee, Kerry will lose my vote! n/t

:kick:

[billyf65]

182. Bayh is kind of a drip

Kerry needs someone with personality.

[OHdem10]

183. Ohio Editors --

Do not agree with your assesmnet of B Bayh. According to Newsper in Cleveand and Cincinati he is not that well known here. Both statd this on CNN