Does VP choice really matter?

[Quixote1818]

I heard several political annalists talking about this and they all came to the conclusion that the VP choice can really only hurt you and almost never helps a candidate much. The more I thought about it I had to agree. They said the only VP choice that might make a real difference in votes might be Bill Richardson because the Hispanic vote has become such a huge block in a number of battle ground states. Hispanics are now numbering 40 Million in the US. I think Hispanics would be excited about Richardson and the Viva Bush crap would die a good death. Clark could solidify the Military vote but other than that I don't really see any other candidate bringing in new votes. Look what happened to Mondale with Ferraro and Quail didn't keep Bush from being elected. I really don't think VP matters much. It might bring you one state but that's it.

[onehandle]

1. One state would have made a difference in 2000.

Lieberman won us nothing.

Clark. Edwards. Graham. Richardson.
Any of them could swing at least one more state.

[LimpingLib]

2. I asure you in states like Ohio and Missouri

that Gephardt will add at least 1.5% to our vote.

Beyond that the most important thing IS what damage a VP can cause us progressives in the future.Nominate a young moderate and he will be right in line to win the presidency and we will be stuck with him and his moderate antoi worker policys for like 16 years.

We dodged that bullet once.

Anyway Gephardt will be in hi mid 70s almost by 2012 so we might have a chance of nominating a true progressive in 2012 (due to Gephardt not running) , though I wouldnt bet on it (because almost every "hot prospect" in our party is moderate with Feingold bing the only exception but he is a LOOONNNGGG shot).

[Scoopie]

3. I think this year the VP choice could help with Indies

I don't think it's so much of a "one state" or "one issue" thing.
The right VP could cause enough Independents and moderates or disgruntled whomevers to vote in the swing states to tip the choice toward either Kerry or Bush.
This is why I've been so much for a foreign policy VP.
While I can see how Democrats want to hang their hats on the economy, they should realize they have the Bushies beat on that issue anyway. This week is the first week Kerry has beaten Bush on foreign policy issues and it's only by one point. Independents, rightly or wrongly, view Democrats as weak on foreign policy and national security. Give them a reason to feel comfortable with a Kerry ticket on this one issue - because they already feel Kerry would be better for their pocketbooks (to live like a Republican, vote for a Democrat) - and they will vote for Kerry.

[Skwmom]

7. Any gain Kerry has made on foreign policy will be

wiped out (and more) by the wrong VP candidate.

The Republicans want a VP they can use to negatively define Kerry (Edwards) and to hammer home negative memes about Dems (they are weak on national security, they have no core values and beliefs, etc). The last thing they want is a VP candidate which would help cast Kerry in a favorable light (Clark).

Clark brings on board MUCH MORE than the military vote. He helps bring on board:

1. The disenchanted with politicians vote.
2. The disgusted with partisan politics vote.
3. The security moms and those worried about national security (which I am betting will increase as we get closer to the election).
4. The religious vote.
5. Republican AND independent vote (without turning off the liberal anti-war vote).
6. The male voter.

etc. etc.


Kerry/Clark would be a very inspiring ticket, offering REAL, substantive hope to the American public.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x552928

Pick the wrong VP candidate and the Republicans will run ads against the VP. Pick the right VP candidate and that person can help Kerry close the deal with many voters.

[JI7]

4. nope, whether Kerry wins or loses will be mostly him,not vp

[ABB Texan]

5. That's part of the whole VP conundrum.....

....it should matter very much, considering that this is the person who will inherit the Big Chair if the President dies in office. Statistically, a modern President stands a 1-in-5 chance of dying in office, and considering the present state of world affairs, those odds (while I personally have not calculated them) have to be getting shorter. Contrary to popular myth, I think a lot of people took a good look at Dan Quayle back in '92, and said "no way" to the ticket. Sure, it was a cakewalk back in '88, but in '92, with a sagging economy, GWHB not the glorious "wartime president", and that whole "no new taxes" thing, voters took a look at the WHOLE package and turned it down. There are no known published statistics on this, but I know from much anecdotal evidence compiled over decades that people vote Against as often as they vote For a presidential candidate. Quayle queered the deal.

And I know, I really do know, that it's probably not too polite to mention it in light of subsequent events-- but I always thought that if Al Gore had just put a little more Clinton-assisted oomph into his campaign, he'd have won it without Florida. But he wanted to run as his own man, and the man who could have won him the election was not-quite ignored. Now there's a VP who'd have made a fine President.

But the honest guy in me is forced to admit that, historically speaking, Presidents from Texas-- whether he inherits the job as Lyndon Johnson did, or has it awarded to him by the Supremes as Dubya did-- have been (and you'll pardon my language) piss-poor. (I was going to say "crooked-ass warmongering sons-of-bitches who couldn't find water if they fell out of a fucking boat", but I figured "piss-poor" was sufficiently descriptive.)

I've never been blinded by the hallucination that some Texans see of "loyalty to Texas" over-riding the need to call it like you see it. Bush has big-time name recognition down here, and at Ground Zero (less than 100 mi. from the mythical Crawford Ranch, which should have no fucking brush at all if that's what Dubya REALLY does down there) you can find people up the wazoo who are big mouthy Bush supporters but know NOTHING about him except he's from Texas and he cut taxes a lot. These are the most frstrating to deal with-- they're your co-workers, your acquaintances and you friends, and it hurts to think this person might be so damn dumb...or blind...or something, you're not sure what.

Okay, end of vent session. I should know better than to think of posting as therapy.

[FrenchieCat]

6. I stand with this view......

from the pages of the Prospect....
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=7927

The Last Hurdle
John Kerry's biggest problem -- still -- is the national security gap. Here's how he can close it.
By Kenneth S. Baer
Web Exclusive: 06.23.04

Print Friendly | Email Article

In Washington, the only question on anyone's mind is: WWJD -- What Will John Do? Everyone has a theory about whom John Kerry will pick (or should pick) as his running mate, and journalists are scrambling for any angle on the story that they can find.

Last Friday, The Washington Post ran one of the most interesting accounts of where Kerry's thinking may or may not be. While the article was filled with rampant speculation by a panoply of unnamed sources, one observation stuck out. According to the Post: "Friends say Kerry believes he has passed a national security threshold with voters that has freed him to tap a vice presidential candidate who complements him in other ways."

If these "friends" of Kerry were really his friends, they would inform him that, sadly, this is not the case. In fact, the only thing keeping George W. Bush in this race is that John Kerry has not yet met this "national security threshold" with the electorate. Voters still give the President a commanding lead on the questions of who can best protect the nation from terrorists and who is a stronger, more patriotic leader. Fortunately for Kerry, these sentiments say more about the Democratic party -- and voters' lingering doubts about Democrats and defense -- than they do about the candidate. Kerry has enough time to close this national security gap -- and must close it if he hopes to beat Bush this fall.

Despite one question on a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll that showed Kerry with a one-point lead over Bush on the question of "whom do you trust to do a better job of handling the U.S. campaign against terrorism," data within that same poll and in others show that the security gap stubbornly persists.

Much more on this article at the site....