The ideal candidate will balance the ticket in geography, personality, ideology, knowledge of or experience with particular issues or in particular arenas, and perhaps gender/race/ethnicity or interest group. They will also be someone who would be a credible President and Commander-in-Chief, who would get along with the nominee, and who would serve a useful purpose in the office. On the trail, they would be someone who would look good on a stump/stage with the nominee, and who would preferably help draw attention/excitement to the campaign. In general, there should be some caution about overcompensating, i.e. picking someone who calls attention to the weaknesses of the nominee. Finally, perhaps obviously, the candidate shouldn't have major weaknesses that threaten to outweigh their benefits (a nonentity may be better than a potential liability), and shouldn't significantly hurt the party through the opportunity cost of giving up their day job (i.e. giving up a Senate seat that they would otherwise keep or run for).
For Dean, the geographical balance favors someone from outside the Northeast (and not from an upscale urban precinct in another part of the country). The experience balance favors someone who has national security and foreign policy experience, and someone who has Federal experience, who knows Washington, Congress in particular. The ideology balance favors someone who is or appears more of a centrist, but they need not be in the further right wing of the party because Dean isn't in the further left wing. The personality balance favors someone who is more Middle American in temperament, more sociable, more religious or expressive of religiosity, and either less abrasive or more confident in their aggressiveness. The need to look good next to the candidate may mean that you need someone somewhat short (Dean is 5'9, I think).
I'll go through my proposed candidates, in order of preference.
Top Tier:
1) Bill Richardson
The positives are just so long. His political resume is almost as broad as Bush 41's was. He was a longtime member of the House from New Mexico, became Ambassador to the UN, then a Cabinet Secretary (Energy), and is now Governor of New Mexico. He has both foreign policy and national security experience, serving on the House Intelligence committee, and being called upon to negotiate with Iraq, Afghanistan and North Korea, among other places. And he knows energy, an increasingly important issue. He's energetic and knows everyone in Washington and is well-liked. He's a guy's guy type, not a metrosexual, and a moderate hawk, which would compare nicely with Cheney. He's a West/Southwesterner (born in CA). And he's hispanic, raised in Mexico, and fluent in Spanish. He'd go a long way to helping Dems win NM, AZ, NV, FL and maybe even CO.
The negatives. Some people just aren't going to vote for him because he's Hispanic. I have an older family member, a lifelong Democrat, who might be among them. How many people, I don't know. Also, some have suggested that blacks will be angry that a latino candidate is on a ticket before a black one is. There are some Clinton-era Energy Dept scandals, which I don't know a lot about, though they don't seem major. He's 6 inches taller than Dean, and a big guy, which might look funny. The big thing is he may not do it. He has said he isn't in the running, but I don't put too much stock in that. But maybe he thinks Dean will lose and he wants to wait four years, when his term expires in 2007.
2) Bob Graham
The positives. He's an obvious choice, having been considered by every Dem nominee since Dukakis. A longtime Senator, he's well-respected and well-liked on both sides of the aisle for his moderate temperament, collegiality, niceness and intelligence, if undistinguished in his legislative record. He was Chairman of the Intelligence committee and harshly criticizes the administration on its non-response to the terrorism issue. He's a moderate hawk (perhaps more hawkish than the Bush admin) who nevertheless opposed the war. He's the most popular politician in Florida, arguably the most important state (though I think it's trending Republican and while we should fight for it we should focus more on the Southwest and the Mississippi River states), who has potential appeal throughout Appalachia and the South and in the Sun belt. He's a bubba of sorts, who will appeal to cultural conservatives, and a "regular guy" who's made a practice throughout his career of going on "work days" in different jobs to learn about what people do. He's in his mid-to-late 60s, and could appeal to older voters. He appears to get along with Dean (and appears to be actively running for his veep spot). And he's friends with Jimmy Buffett, so maybe we'd get the parrothead vote.
Negatives. He isn't that old, but he seems it. There's nothing scintillating about him in the slightest, and in the debates/talk-shows he sometimes looked out of it. His terrorism-alarmism cuts both ways. And he has a habit of obsessively recording minutiae of his daily activity (e.g., 8:17 AM, what kind of cereal he's eating for breakfast), which was considered weird enough for him to lose his status as frontrunner to be Gore's veep. Together, these things make him look a little weird/nuts/early-Alzheimers. And he's had heart problems in the past (though clearly that's not prohibitive in nominees today). Those don't seem like that much, so perhaps he's the safest net-positive/negative choice. However, while his niceness/mildness pairs well with Dean, it may not create much excitement compared to the Lieberman announcement or on the trail. Then again, perhaps the genius Dean campaign will find a way to make him exciting. Maybe he and Dean can get a lot of attention by going on "work days" together.
3) Wes Clark
Positives. Well, duh, the resume. Successful General who's also experienced in foreign policy and reasonably well-versed in domestic political issues, not to mention a brilliant Rhodes scholar. Beyond that he's temperamentally at least compatible with the Democratic mainstream and with an empathetic capacity (or at least the appearance of same). Good tv skills. Aggressive, but non-descriptly middle-American with the potential to help pick up Arkansas (maybe), and perhaps other parts of the South or the Midwest.
Negatives. More than a few. He's never been in government before, or elected to anything. Moreover, you can be the smartest guy in the world and still not be a good politician. He certainly isn't a bad one, but he has a long way to go. Put him on the spot when he's unprepared and it has the potential to be a disaster. Get him away from his advisors and you realize how much he relies upon and is molded by them. And there's such a thing as too smart with some people. He, like Clinton, will be easily painted as slick, a flip-flopper, untrustworthy. I'm not sure I don't feel that way about him. Clinton won twice of course, but he was helped twice by Perot and had an appeal to core Democrats that Clark does not. And there are lots of people in the military who will speak out against him and suggest that he almost started World War III in Kosovo. I think that he's been very successful in the military but in certain fundamental ways is not of its culture. Finally, he's run against Dean and there may be enough moments from the primary campaign that can be used by the other side in the general. His strengths are significant, but he's missing a key one, and I'm not sure I'm willing to take the risks.
My alternative choice would be Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, CentCom prior to Tommy Franks, who has become a harsh critic of the Administration and who, like Clark, has significant foreign policy negotiation experience, especially in the Mideast. The problem is that he said today in the Washington Post that he's sworn off politics. Not to mention the fact that he's a Republican. He endorsed Bush in 2000 (though this is what led to his current distrust of any candidate), and considers himself best aligned with moderate GOP hawks like Powell, Lugar and Hagel. But maybe it's time for the Democrats to be open to such moderate foreign policy Republicans. The larger issue though is I have no idea where he stands on or what he knows about anything domestic. So it's a nice idea, but probably not.
Second Tier
4) Dick Gephardt/John Dingell
Relatively unexciting, but not necessarily disastrous, choices whose advantages are that they're experienced Members of Congress (Gep as Majority leader, Dingell as the longest-serving member of the House) from the Big River midwest region, which Democrats won last time and are most in danger of losing in 2004, for demographic/trend reasons and because Dean is going to have a tougher time with the culture of this region than elsewhere. More importantly, perhaps, they have very strong union support, and we want the old-like manufacturing unions heavily involved in this election and in this region. Many think that these unions' strong turnout efforts in 2000 are the reason Gore almost won, and some think that they will be dispirited if/when their man Dick loses the nomination, and will have little incentive to work for Dean because they won't get the credit due to his campaign skills, internet operation and media presence. Giving them more of a stake in the campaign could be a good idea. Both have moderate tendencies, Gephardt as a hawk, and Dingell as strongly pro-gun, but are otherwise mainstream to liberal Democrats. But neither have serious foreign policy experience.
Gep has lots of negatives of course, as a wimpy, boring Washington politician with no eyebrows. And again, he's a primary opponent who attacked Dean harshly (for Gephardt). But back in 1988, Dean supported Gep's Presidential campaign, which was run by Dean's current campaign manager. Maybe they can heal their wounds. And maybe boring is irrelevant if the unions' get out the vote effort gets the job done.
Dingell may be problematic with women and the gun control lobby, people Dean may need help appealing to, and is not a moderate on economic issues. And I'm not sure he wants to go anywhere from his House seat or if he has any interest in Dean.
Alternate Big Riverians include Sen. Tom Harkin and Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa, but I'm not sure Iowa will be a problem in 2004. While Harkin can be tough, he's not tough enough and may be too liberal and boring. While Vilsack gets decent "regular guy" marks and can be energetic, he's probably too inexperienced. I'm not sure we want to give up either of them.
5) Bill Nelson/Mark Warner/John Edwards/Mary Landrieu
These guys are all less experienced rising stars in the party whose value as a nominee would be in their Southernness and moderation and in their broad cultural appeal. It would be a risk to take them because they leave big holes in the ticket, so they're probably not great choices, but it's possible they could refresh the ticket the way the Lieberman choice did.
Landrieu and Edwards both have real Southern appeal and are attractive. And Edwards is very smart and has a creative policy program.
My exciting guy here is Bill Nelson. He's a first-term Florida Senator, on the Armed Services committee, who was previously a Congressman and Florida Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner. He looks like an authentic, but not flashy Southern guy, Trent Lott without the helmet-hair. The kicker is he was an astronaut. But it would be a real insult to Bob Graham to take the other guy from Florida, and we probably don't want to give up his seat.
Gov. Mark Warner of Virginia wouldn't be a bad choice either. He won in a State that Dems conceivably could pick up, in part by appealing to the new tech corridor in Northern VA's Fairfax county. He could help with the moderate, male, economy-focused "investor class." But in his first term at the State level, he's probably a little green.
― g@bbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 24 December 2003 05:57 (twenty-one years ago)
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 24 December 2003 05:59 (twenty-one years ago)
Jay Rockefeller - talked up because he's very popular in West Virginia, and perhaps in surrounding states like PA and OH, and is an experienced, moderate Senator on the Intelligence Committee. I say no because he's dorky-looking and "Rockefeller" will not play well anywhere he doesn't come from (but what of the Roc-a-Fella vote?).
John Breaux - well, he wouldn't do it, I wouldn't think. Might get some broad appeal and surprise out of it, but would be outweighed by dismay from supporters. While a real Democrat, a bit too far to the right.
Sam Nunn - again, I don't think he'd go there. Perhaps less of a Democrat than Wes Clark? Not exactly gay-friendly, and we won't win GA no matter what. Then again, if he's a Republican, he's the acceptable kind on foreign policy and is well-respected and smart. But, don't think it would work.
Bob Kerrey - he fits the Washington and foreign policy/national security bills and has war experience, but the Vietnam questions would be too distracting at worst, and he left politics for NYC and he wouldn't bring any excitement or constituency
Ann Richards - would appeal to the elderly and perhaps the culturally conservative and women but not even all that popular in Texas anymore and no foreign policy or Congressional experience (though DC connections).
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 24 December 2003 06:27 (twenty-one years ago)
I don't know Dean's strength in California, but if he can't win it on his own merits he can't win the presidency. Picking someone like Barabara Boxer might be tempting, but it would leave him much too vulnerable in the border South, because he'd look too 'liberal'.
Ideally, Wes Clark will figure out that he can't win it all and will begin to tailor his campaign for a veep bid, by making himself as the ultimate "security without stupidity" candidate. Clark also needs to show well in the border South primaries. Just being from Arkansas won't be enough. He needs to embrace his southerness and his military credentials as his main appeal. That would make Clark the ideal veep for Dean, by protecting his flank.
Once he's on the ticket, Clark would need to rip into Bush and Cheney's military policies from a military POV. The USA is throwing a vast amount of blood and treasure into Iraq, with no publically articulated policy of what constitutes victory or how we get there from here.
No other veep could do this vital job as well as Clark could. It would free up Dean to talk about Bush's corrupt domestic policies, which is where his best credibility lies. Domestically, Bush has done nothing but crap on the poor and middle class.
― Aimless, Wednesday, 24 December 2003 20:58 (twenty-one years ago)
― anthony kyle monday (akmonday), Wednesday, 24 December 2003 21:20 (twenty-one years ago)
― Aimless, Wednesday, 24 December 2003 22:57 (twenty-one years ago)
clark's military background will help in west va, and he's from ak
― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 25 December 2003 19:24 (twenty-one years ago)
not sure i feel comfortable with him as VP anyway; the guy voted for reagan and both bushes
― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 25 December 2003 19:32 (twenty-one years ago)
I heard Richardson will prob not be in the running as he lobbied too hard for this post in 2000 and annoyed some folks in the party establishment.
Graham is possible. Dean's been saying he needs someone to fill the foreign-policy experience spot on the resume. Who else would be suited to that?
― daria g (daria g), Friday, 26 December 2003 08:00 (twenty-one years ago)
― teeny (teeny), Friday, 26 December 2003 13:17 (twenty-one years ago)
Ah! There is the beauty of the vice-presidency. Once elected, the president can utterly ignore the veep, should it please His Majesty to do so. A veep is a shade less powerful than the man who powdered the king's wig.
― Aimless, Friday, 26 December 2003 19:54 (twenty-one years ago)
am I the only person that think graham comes across as kind of, uh, buddy hackettesque? And not foul-mouthed Las Vegas buddy hackett, but "Love Bug" Buddy Hackett. He seems too lumpy and cuddly to be on the ticket. This is really shallow, I know. Also, I don't really know jack about him.
― anthony kyle monday (akmonday), Friday, 26 December 2003 21:04 (twenty-one years ago)
i really dont think vp's mean squat in the general election. it depends on circumstances i suppose. someone mentioned liberman being gore's hope to win florida, and look how that went. i think cheney might have leant some credibility to bush but only in some circles. i mean look at how many vp's get smoked when they try and run for president when their boy is done with their term.
― bill stevens (bscrubbins), Friday, 26 December 2003 21:11 (twenty-one years ago)
― g--ff (gcannon), Monday, 5 January 2004 06:27 (twenty-one years ago)
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Monday, 5 January 2004 13:14 (twenty-one years ago)
Note the short-list shockers:- the presence of Kerrey- the absence of Richardson
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 16:55 (twenty-one years ago)
I really want Richardson to be a possiblity, boo.
I worry about the Kerry/Kerrey possibility, it's just going to take up valuable media time with explanations about which one we're talking about.
NOBODY LIKES DICK GEPHARDT, EVEN IN MISSOURI.
― teeny (teeny), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 17:02 (twenty-one years ago)
right.
so do I. there's no good reason to think he's not.
hey, it gets free media coverage.
well, what about Ohio? Michigan? Minnesota?
one of Gep's advantages is that he can be an attack dog without ever coming close to looking mean. whether he's effective is another question. I don't think it's going to be him, though I do think he will be in the Kerry administration.
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 17:07 (twenty-one years ago)
― bnw (bnw), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 17:12 (twenty-one years ago)
― Girolamo Savonarola, Tuesday, 30 March 2004 17:12 (twenty-one years ago)
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 17:15 (twenty-one years ago)
― anthony kyle monday (akmonday), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 17:16 (twenty-one years ago)
― Girolamo Savonarola, Tuesday, 30 March 2004 17:20 (twenty-one years ago)
Meet Southern Comfort. No way Dems win it, but someone like Graham might change the discourse there a tiny bit, with butterfly effects.
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 17:20 (twenty-one years ago)
― anthony kyle monday (akmonday), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 17:22 (twenty-one years ago)
― nickalicious (nickalicious), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 17:24 (twenty-one years ago)
― anthony kyle monday (akmonday), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 17:26 (twenty-one years ago)
you think if Kerry "kicked it" McCain would change the policies of his administration?
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 17:31 (twenty-one years ago)
― donut bitch (donut), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 17:33 (twenty-one years ago)
Then again, I wasn't involved in politics enough to remember if Lloyd Bentsen went through the same thing when he accepted Dukakis's nod for veep.
― donut bitch (donut), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 17:34 (twenty-one years ago)
― teeny (teeny), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 17:35 (twenty-one years ago)
Does Bush HAVE to keep Cheney? Given Cheney's heart problems, there could be an amicable decision to drop Cheney as veep choice, and have Bush choose McCain as veep.
*shudder*
― donut bitch (donut), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 17:39 (twenty-one years ago)
Lloyd Bentsen was a lifelong Democrat, no?
Given Cheney's heart problems, there could be an amicable decision to drop Cheney as veep choice, and have Bush choose McCain as veep.
McCain loathes Bush. He is friends with Kerry. Would never happen in a million years.
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 17:45 (twenty-one years ago)
― anthony kyle monday (akmonday), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 17:59 (twenty-one years ago)
― donut bitch (donut), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 20:09 (twenty-one years ago)
The article suggests to me that Kerry, if he follows the historical trend, will pick someone 1) with significant experience, including experience in Congress, 2) with a sense of seriousness/gravitas, 3) who preferably has served in the military (though he might be able to substitute governmental experience with military or intelligence or foreign policy issues).4) who is regarded as a straight-shooter5) who does not have substantial ideological differences with Kerry (but perhaps experience will override this factor).
This is the list, including marginal candidates, that I think the article dictates:Max ClelandDick GephardtBob GrahamBob KerreyJohn McCain (who isn't an option)Bill NelsonSam NunnBill Richardson
The list dosn't include, of course, John Edwards or anyone else age 55 or younger (Bill Richardson just makes the cut), such as reported candidates IA Gov Tom Vilsack, VA Gov Mark Warner, AZ Gov Janet Napolitano and KS Gov Kathleen Sebelius. I don't think any of these people are seriously being considered. Kerry's people are probably throwing them out as thanks for support and to build up names for the future and to keep the other side off the trail. But maybe I'm looking at things the wrong way - I assume Kerry will want to emphasize his experience by adding to it, but is it possible that he wants to do so instead by contrasting it with someone younger?
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Sunday, 11 April 2004 15:40 (twenty-one years ago)
Max Cleland - 30 to 1 (the suicide pick...zero upside)Dick Gephardt - 35 to 1 (zero freshness, the eternal campaigner)Bob Graham - 10 to 1 (I just don't get the appeal of this guy)Bob Kerrey - 5 to 1 (I think his problems in 'Nam are way overrated)John McCain (who isn't an option) - 1 zillion to 1Bill Nelson - 15 to 1 (what Gabbneb said re: dicking Graham is OTM)Sam Nunn - 5 to 1 (good on paper, not a great campaigner)Bill Richardson -5 to 1 (Is he really out of the running or what?)Evan Bayh - 5 to 1 (my "favorite" of the bunch)
― don carville weiner, Sunday, 11 April 2004 16:50 (twenty-one years ago)
― suzy (suzy), Sunday, 11 April 2004 16:58 (twenty-one years ago)
Bob Graham - I'm really not sure how strong a candidate he is. He doesn't have much appeal to anyone I know, though I think he could appeal a bit to older folks and Gulf Coasters. But he wouldn't get picked for appeal, he'd get picked for being a relatively safe choice who could do the job. His service on the Intelligence Committee and the Cong Cmte investigating 9/11, as well as his economic experience, including as Governor and a businessman, are relevant.
I think Bob Kerrey's Nam problems are overrated too.
Nunn - good point re campaigning. Dick Cheney isn't exactly Mr. Stump Speech either. Then again Kerry doesn't connect (vomit) like Bush. Maybe that really is a hole for him to fill (his people claim there are none other than regionalism but that may be disinformation), but he also doesn't want someone who upstages him.
Bill Nelson - I think he has enough experience, just not a lot or as much as others. And while he'd be a fresh (but not all that exciting or attractive) face, the fact that he isn't known wouldn't do much for gravitas. I'm not sure how relevant the Graham thing is, though. Graham is 67 years old and he knows the five-years-younger Nelson is on the list.
Richardson hasn't taken himself out of the running - you say you don't want it when you do want it. But if he's said that there are better choices, he may be honest, and I'm beginning to think that he'd be right. But he's done a lot more than those in his age cohort - even Hillary hasn't been a Congressman, Cabinet Secretary, UN Ambassador, negotiator with a nuclear state, Governor, and Nobel Peace Prize nominee. Admittedly, some of these involved short terms.
Bayh - He has been high if not on the top of my list. I did consciously leave him out of this one, though, based on the factors in this article. But maybe I shouldn't have. He's a Senator with a bit of a record and (recently?) on the Armed Services Cmte as well as a former Governor. But he's 49 years old, and while he looks older than the (actually older) Edwards, I'm not sure he gets up to the gravitas stage. And he's never been close to battle. And this article says balancing ideology isn't so important. If you want a moderate, I think Nelson might be a better pick on most of the fronts that this article says to me should be relevant.
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Sunday, 11 April 2004 17:22 (twenty-one years ago)
You do want an eternal campaigner, but you want want that is fresh. Gephart = voter confusion = ball & chain. Yes, familiarity is nice in the beginning but in the long run Gephart is Washington Establishment. And you already have that on the ticket, so that's another reason Gephart isn't the right person.
I think that jacking up the military cred is waaaaay overrated, or at least overrated in terms of being a difference. Look at what Clinton did with his military record vs. Poppy. Look at Bush 43 and Cheney. It's a non-issue. You don't need "credibility" as a military to give the country a plan on how to stabilize (er, exit?) Iraq. You just need a plan that people can reasonably buy into.
I also think gravitas is way overrated, or at least in this election. You cannot out-gravitas the President, and if you make gravitas an issue then you are wasting energy and money. Plus, Kerry's got enough of it. It would be awesome if there was a younger pitbull type that would go after Cheney and make him look like an old man, rather than see a wonk-off with a dude like Richardson in the debates.
Napolitano is okay. That gov from Kansas wouldn't be good. I'd like to see a woman on the ticket if she was a fireball. This may be sexist, but if there was a really attractive woman on the ticket, do you think it could be a difference maker? I do. Who is the hottest female pol, anyway?
Also, I like the idea of that Ford kid from Tennessee on the ticket. But he's too young, right?
― don carville weiner, Sunday, 11 April 2004 18:05 (twenty-one years ago)
― Dan I., Monday, 12 April 2004 01:03 (twenty-one years ago)
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Monday, 12 April 2004 01:06 (twenty-one years ago)
http://estelle.jppss.k12.la.us/Landrieu_files/image002.jpg
Well, he asked!
― Pleasant Plains (Pleasant Plains), Monday, 12 April 2004 01:27 (twenty-one years ago)
― don carville weiner, Monday, 12 April 2004 10:27 (twenty-one years ago)
― Pleasant Plains (Pleasant Plains), Monday, 12 April 2004 15:23 (twenty-one years ago)
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 14 April 2004 02:42 (twenty-one years ago)
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 14 April 2004 02:46 (twenty-one years ago)
― cinniblount (James Blount), Wednesday, 14 April 2004 20:17 (twenty-one years ago)
― cinniblount (James Blount), Wednesday, 14 April 2004 20:18 (twenty-one years ago)
― don atwater weiner, Wednesday, 14 April 2004 21:10 (twenty-one years ago)
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 14 April 2004 21:11 (twenty-one years ago)
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 14 April 2004 21:13 (twenty-one years ago)
x-post
― cinniblount (James Blount), Wednesday, 14 April 2004 21:14 (twenty-one years ago)
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 14 April 2004 21:16 (twenty-one years ago)
I don't think there's anything wrong with picking whomever the hell he wants to pick, or what the qualifications are. As far as I'm concerned, if he factors "large breasts" as an important factor, it doesn't bother me. Whatever. There's a difference between being "qualified" for the job and being the "best" for the job, though. And what I'm pointing out is that "best" for the job might be things that are not related to merit.
― don atwater weiner, Wednesday, 14 April 2004 21:29 (twenty-one years ago)
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 16 April 2004 19:31 (twenty-one years ago)
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 16 April 2004 19:54 (twenty-one years ago)
It seems to me that more than anything, you want a ticket to inspire voters to get out.
I'm not sure Democrats need any extra inspiration this year. Even besides beating Bush, 60% of Americans claim to be paying close attention to the race.
You cannot out-gravitas the President
You can out-gravitas this President, easy. I dunno, maybe we don't want to. You maybe can't out-powerful Cheney, but I think you can out-gravitas him.
right. I'm no fan of his.
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 16 April 2004 20:07 (twenty-one years ago)
― Sym (shmuel), Friday, 16 April 2004 20:13 (twenty-one years ago)
― Pleasant Plains (Pleasant Plains), Friday, 16 April 2004 20:17 (twenty-one years ago)
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 16 April 2004 20:21 (twenty-one years ago)
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 16 April 2004 22:07 (twenty-one years ago)
Once Kerry and X is ensconsed, the progressive side of the Democratic party needs to work at pulling the mandate in that direction so that his second term can respond to the energy of this now-dominant part of the party and that his successor will be the progressive president you thought you might have had with Clinton.
― plebian plebs (plebian), Saturday, 17 April 2004 03:50 (twenty-one years ago)
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Saturday, 17 April 2004 03:58 (twenty-one years ago)
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 30 April 2004 18:21 (twenty-one years ago)
― don carville weiner, Friday, 30 April 2004 19:05 (twenty-one years ago)
Geraldine Ferraro echoes my emphasis on making the election a referendum on Bush and emphasizing that Kerry and his running mate will have the experience to pick up the slack. But she says that any of the current short-listers would fill the role. Is that just a politic statement? I mean, some have more experience than others, clearly. Maybe. Maybe not - I could be parsing who served on which committe for how long. They're all Members of Congress and/or Governors. Maybe that's good enough.
Novak goes a similar route, pointing out Biden. He has been a favorite of mine on this ground. But now I'm not so sure - I think it will be too easy to paint him as another "flip-flopper," and an "arrogant" one from the Northeast at that.
Fineman's wrap-up suggests that Graham and Nelson have been downgraded and gives extra space to Vilsack - he's a 'more interesting version of Gephardt,' as I've thought for a while. It also points out that he's from Republican Western Pennsylvania, and that his Catholicism will be a big plus - I think it will be a significant force in many of the swing states. But Fineman also points out something about Edwards (that I've seen before, maybe also from Fineman) - no one is going to be better at making a case for John Kerry than the trial lawyer. Maybe that's really what it comes down to - don't pick the Veep for what the choice says about you, pick the veep for what the veep themself literally says about you. And another thing - Edwards is the most 'likeable' guy out there in the sense that people use the word to refer to Bush. Not macho by any means, but jocular and jovial, the kind of guy who has values but doesn't take things too seriously. I think this appeals to a lot of the male swing voters. If a guy they like vouches for the guy they're willing to like but don't cling to naturally, it may help a lot. I've been downgrading Edwards for a while, but I'm now starting to really cotton to the idea. A few weeks ago, I made up a chart of all of the bio details and qualities that I thought would be valuable in a candidate (how valuable my weighting was, i don't know), and Edwards, against my expectation, came out an easy winner. He'll also be able to put the Southeast, if not in play, at least on edge for Bush. He might help in Northern Florida, Virginia, North Carolina and Tennesse. He'd have at least some play in the rust belt, and perhaps the 'midwest' too.
Maybe this should come down to Vilsack v. Edwards. Is it a contest between focusing on the important swing states and following a national strategy?
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Sunday, 2 May 2004 17:25 (twenty-one years ago)
I want some of that action, too.
Does anyone in the Democratic Party have a bigger 'loser' association than (OK, maybe Daschle) Gep?
― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Sunday, 2 May 2004 19:32 (twenty-one years ago)
Whoever they pick, I think they should go ahead and do it sooner rather than later. Kerry could really use somebody to carry some water for him, the way Bush is letting Cheney play attack dog while he's pretending to be above it all.
― spittle (spittle), Sunday, 2 May 2004 20:00 (twenty-one years ago)
Bob Kerrey seems like a bad idea. He comes off as too wonky -- kind of a Democratic version of Jack Kemp, and you saw how he played on the stump. Plus I can't imagine him doing it because of how it might affect the perceptions of the Sept. 11 commission's report. On a more visceral level, a Kerry/Kerrey ticket would just sound a little weird: "Are they brothers? Cousins? Did they get married in Massachusetts?"
― spittle (spittle), Sunday, 2 May 2004 20:11 (twenty-one years ago)
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Monday, 3 May 2004 15:52 (twenty-one years ago)
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 4 May 2004 12:41 (twenty-one years ago)
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 4 May 2004 12:45 (twenty-one years ago)
Is this a realistic possibility to confront? Is it reasonable to think that you could win Indiana and lose Ohio? Win Georgia and lose Florida? Even if one of the Veeps pulled the target state (and only the target state), Kerry would lose if he fails to cover his flank in PA or MI. Choosing between a home-state strategy and a regional or national strategy seems to be a decision about how confident we are that Kerry can hold the rust belt and upper midwest.
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 4 May 2004 13:04 (twenty-one years ago)
The point about Gephardt's ability to carry MO is well-taken - he's never won a statewide election, only his St. Louis Congressional District, one of 3 (out of 9) in Missouri to vote for Gore in 2000.
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 4 May 2004 14:06 (twenty-one years ago)
But more importantly really, whoever they choose must be able to enhance Kerry's chances of carrying Wisconsin, Missouri, Iowa and the big one, Ohio. At the end of the day, I just cannot see Bush taking Michigan or Pennsylavania; they are just patently *not* his territory, politically. Admittedly, it has been good tactics for him to be pushing in PA, but I doubt, if the Dems. run a good campaign and energise their voters (remember, they're already far more energised than at this stage in 2000, and Kerry's doing better than Gore was, too) that they could lose PA or MI, though they may be relatively close. Taking Missouri and Ohio would set them well on the way to winning.
Gephardt is patently not the answer; they need someone who is genuinely going to enthuse people and get them to turn out and vote; look how terribly Gephardt did even in a purely Democratic field in that Iowa caucus... Edwards looks the best bet to me; as mentioned above, the media's view of him is already a big plus. If he's the VP candidate, Kerry should get him working the stump continually in the midwest states, a few select southern ones, and states like WI, PA and WV, which are in play.
The Democrats aren't going to take Indiana; that much is certain. When did it last go 'blue'? Bush leads by 15% in polls; even a Indiana running-mate would only reduce that lead to about 5% I bet.
Are there no significant Ohio politicians that Kerry could use?
― Tom May (Tom May), Tuesday, 4 May 2004 16:49 (twenty-one years ago)
On a personal and telegenic basis, I like Edwards a lot. He's good from the stump and I think can energize the youth vote much better than any other candidate. Those aspects alone greatly trump his career as an ambulance chasing, class action specialist.
Vilsack is a relatively unproven commodity, a wildcard that would be very surprising given that Kerry is the underdog. Biden has lots of baggage and prone to condescending outbursts--in many ways he seems like a smarter version of Howard Dean. But I think Biden would make a better VP than Pres. I still think Richardson is Kerry's best move.
― don carville weiner, Tuesday, 4 May 2004 17:01 (twenty-one years ago)
― kyle (akmonday), Tuesday, 4 May 2004 17:03 (twenty-one years ago)
― Tom May (Tom May), Tuesday, 4 May 2004 17:07 (twenty-one years ago)
AR we have a chance in no matter who's on the ticket, but Edwards will help little there. He could help in part of Georgia, but not enough to win. I'm not sure anyone could win GA for us. I see Edwards' impact in FL as negligible. The states I think he helps us most in - NC and VA - are future swing states, but probably not ready yet. His real value is outside the South, in the rust belt states you indicate are problems.
At the end of the day, I just cannot see Bush taking Michigan or Pennsylavania; they are just patently *not* his territory, politically
no, they are Reagan democrat states - economically liberal, and with big cities that tip the balance to the Dems, but culturally conservative enough that they are close calls. Pennsylvania, a culturally 'Southern' Appalachian state in its middle, is one of the prime Republican targets in this race. I take it you're unfamiliar with recent polls showing Kerry with only a four-point Michigan lead and a tie in Pennslvania? I expect Kerry to win both, but he's going to have to spend resources to make sure.
Gephardt is patently not the answer; they need someone who is genuinely going to enthuse people and get them to turn out and vote; look how terribly Gephardt did even in a purely Democratic field in that Iowa caucus...
If you look at numbers, Iowa means nothing - it was a fraction of the Democratic electorate in a 4-point state. If you look at percentages, Gephardt led there for quite some time, until negative ads and a media push for the telegenic Edwards, plus a strong Kerry ground game and risk-aversion on the part of liberal democrats led them to Kerry. Gephardt doesn't excite anyone (except unions, which you discount), but he does make some people comfortable the way others don't.
It last went 'blue' with LBJ, but Clinton got within 6% both times. That's the same margin Bush led by in a February poll (yes, that was in the post-NH bounce and there's a more recent one by an outfit I've never heard of showing a 15-point lead). Maybe those 6 points are a brick wall, but Evan Bayh has handily won at least 3 elections in Indiana, and perhaps he could threaten to vault us over it. It's certainly not likely to go Dem, but putting Bayh on the ticket would put it in play, I believe. It would also have an impact in adjacent Michigan.
No. Though Rockefeller's West Virginia media coverage may extend into Republican Southeastern Ohio.
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 4 May 2004 17:10 (twenty-one years ago)
― kyle (akmonday), Tuesday, 4 May 2004 17:12 (twenty-one years ago)
― Tom May (Tom May), Tuesday, 4 May 2004 17:18 (twenty-one years ago)
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 4 May 2004 17:22 (twenty-one years ago)
Was it always like this? Was LBJ that active a VP from 1960-63, or Mondale 1976-80, Bush 1980-88, or Quayle 1988-92? It's not something I know much about...
It's certainly being overlooked, I feel, that the choice will point to future governing direction, to some extent, rather than merely being a choice based on electoral considerations.
― Tom May (Tom May), Tuesday, 4 May 2004 17:29 (twenty-one years ago)
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 4 May 2004 18:06 (twenty-one years ago)
I do agree that VP candidates can provide a swing to the ticket; in a close race, it could be a small one that will count. You'd possibly get a much larger one with the Indianan Bayh, though considering the polls, it's unlikely the ECVs would go to the Democrats.
― Tom May (Tom May), Tuesday, 4 May 2004 19:46 (twenty-one years ago)
― Mary (Mary), Wednesday, 5 May 2004 21:30 (twenty-one years ago)
but you know, i'm starting to realize it doesn't matter that much - these guys are *all* good.
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Monday, 17 May 2004 01:34 (twenty-one years ago)
He (and others of similar credibility) keep saying that Hillary is still in the running for VEEP. Morris says that this is a "turn out the vote" election, one that will be very close, and if Hillary runs "110%" of Democrats will show up at the booths.
I haven't seen Hillary's negative numbers in a long time, but I assume she is still quite polarizing to the right, and that she would inspire Republican turnout as much as Democrats. But I also think she is way, way, way better than she was ten years ago, and that she is quite formidable. Yet it still doesn't make sense to me; something about her and Kerry doesn't fit well. I can't put my finger on it.
Without launching tirades against Morris, does anyone here think that Hillary is seriously under consideration?
― don carville weiner, Tuesday, 18 May 2004 16:00 (twenty-one years ago)
You're right about that. I don't know why it is either but they will not appear normal in the same photograph. Seems too forced. The last thing the dems need is to appear to be gladhanding voters.
― mcd (mcd), Tuesday, 18 May 2004 16:06 (twenty-one years ago)
I noticed that this thread begins with: So I'm just going to assume that Dean gets the nomination
― bill stevens (bscrubbins), Tuesday, 18 May 2004 16:42 (twenty-one years ago)
― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 20 May 2004 15:02 (twenty-one years ago)
― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 20 May 2004 15:09 (twenty-one years ago)
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 20 May 2004 18:01 (twenty-one years ago)
― hstencil (hstencil), Monday, 24 May 2004 05:08 (twenty-one years ago)
that wasn't an unreasonable assumption when the thread was created (late dec' 2003).
I don't think he'll win it, but I'm convinced VA and NC are more blue than before.
i've read random musings that south carolina (!) -- home of bob jones university -- is also more "blue" than one would presume. the "jobless recovery" has hit SC pretty damn hard, jesus won't pay the bills, and what's a few homos getting married when yer home may be repossessed? still -- if this is true, isn't THAT some shit?
― Eisbär (llamasfur), Monday, 24 May 2004 05:20 (twenty-one years ago)
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 25 May 2004 21:27 (twenty-one years ago)
― Sym (shmuel), Wednesday, 26 May 2004 03:22 (twenty-one years ago)
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 26 May 2004 03:23 (twenty-one years ago)
― Sym (shmuel), Wednesday, 26 May 2004 03:27 (twenty-one years ago)
― cinniblount (James Blount), Thursday, 27 May 2004 23:11 (twenty-one years ago)
― kyle (akmonday), Thursday, 27 May 2004 23:27 (twenty-one years ago)
― kyle (akmonday), Thursday, 27 May 2004 23:28 (twenty-one years ago)
Fineman's update, focusing on Edwards. He says July 4th weekend will be the earliest Veep date. I predict we get it either that weekend or in the 10 days prior. And I think who he picks will play a role in the timing. Assuming they've decided by late June, I think it would be a good idea to announce Edwards over July 4th, not wait to announce someone more experienced, and wait even later to announce someone less experienced. It's possible that they've decided, and we'll get an announcement even sooner, but I doubt it. They're going to take a few more weeks to establish Kerry on his own.
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Saturday, 29 May 2004 18:44 (twenty-one years ago)
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Saturday, 29 May 2004 18:58 (twenty-one years ago)
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Saturday, 29 May 2004 20:54 (twenty-one years ago)
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 1 June 2004 17:01 (twenty-one years ago)
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 1 June 2004 17:39 (twenty-one years ago)
I really don't see why Kerry wouldn't wait until the convention to announce his running mate. The 4th of July is a dead news cycle anyway, especially with this year it being on the weekend.
― dan carville weiner, Tuesday, 1 June 2004 17:53 (twenty-one years ago)
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 1 June 2004 19:26 (twenty-one years ago)
― kyle (akmonday), Tuesday, 1 June 2004 20:17 (twenty-one years ago)
― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 4 June 2004 02:14 (twenty-one years ago)
ABC Political's Noted Now reports the following...
FLASH: NO VEEP DECISION EXPECTED IN JUNE: Sources tell ABC's Marc Ambinder that several of those being vetted by Sen. Kerry's veepstakes czar, James Johnson, have been told not to expect a formal decision until at least July. Sources say Vilsack, Edwards, Gephardt have been extensively vetted ... sources also say Biden, Nunn have not been vetted.
What does that tell me? I dunno, but what do you say to Biden or Nunn in late June? (Biden, btw, will turn 62 shortly after election day)
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Saturday, 5 June 2004 00:09 (twenty-one years ago)
― hstencil (hstencil), Monday, 7 June 2004 04:21 (twenty-one years ago)
― Ed (dali), Monday, 7 June 2004 05:00 (twenty-one years ago)
― hstencil (hstencil), Monday, 7 June 2004 05:04 (twenty-one years ago)
― Ed (dali), Monday, 7 June 2004 05:13 (twenty-one years ago)
― aimurchie, Monday, 7 June 2004 10:51 (twenty-one years ago)
New Mexico went Democrat in 2000.
― hstencil (hstencil), Monday, 7 June 2004 12:58 (twenty-one years ago)
One name I haven't seen yet - former long-time AR Senator and one-term Governor Dale Bumpers. He served in World War II! He's an inspiring orator! He was big in small biz and agriculture issues, and has recently run the Center for Defense Information. Yes, he's old, nearing 80, but age is relative - John Glenn seems to be doing as well as much younger Bob Graham. I've seen nothing to suggest that Bumpers is in ill health or out of it. His big drawback is his closing defense of Clinton in the impeachment trial. But he was never otherwise very close to Clinton and generally cut an independent figure in Congress.
Other ideas. Why not Gary Hart? He's independent-minded. He has bigtime terrorism cred. He'd be a real attack dog. And we can make a play for Colorado. Do people really care about Donna Rice anymore? He almost ran himself, after all. Or Bill Bradley? Too boring, but otherwise a good mirror of Kerry - a big jock who leans left but is a serious pragmatist.
The media's reaction may matter more than anyone else's. Who would be a huge story at this point? Hillary! A terrible idea in terms of exciting the other side, but it would also excite our side, and Kerry has some female trouble. How does she poll with swing voters? Probably really poorly. But I think things are looking bad enough for Bush that she would do it if she thought it wouldn't kill the ticket. I think there are decent reasons to not embrace the Clintons, but generally it makes Democrats look weak. Americans like dynasties, unfortunately.
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Monday, 21 June 2004 19:22 (twenty-one years ago)
+ Orphaned+ Adopted+ Physically Abused+ Educated at a liberal arts school (Hamilton College, my alma mater!) + Involved in Education reform, Job Creation, and Biomedical Research.
― j e r e m y (x Jeremy), Monday, 21 June 2004 20:07 (twenty-one years ago)
― hstencil (hstencil), Monday, 21 June 2004 20:11 (twenty-one years ago)
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Monday, 21 June 2004 20:13 (twenty-one years ago)
― j e r e m y (x Jeremy), Monday, 21 June 2004 20:16 (twenty-one years ago)
― hstencil (hstencil), Monday, 21 June 2004 20:19 (twenty-one years ago)
― rasheed wallace (rasheed wallace), Monday, 21 June 2004 20:23 (twenty-one years ago)
― j e r e m y (x Jeremy), Monday, 21 June 2004 20:25 (twenty-one years ago)
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Monday, 21 June 2004 20:29 (twenty-one years ago)
― j e r e m y (x Jeremy), Monday, 21 June 2004 20:30 (twenty-one years ago)
― kyle (akmonday), Monday, 21 June 2004 20:30 (twenty-one years ago)
― kyle (akmonday), Monday, 21 June 2004 20:31 (twenty-one years ago)
I think Tom Vilsack would be a better fit as a Senate candidate or something. I like the guy, but I just can't imagine him energizing the electorate.
― rasheed wallace (rasheed wallace), Monday, 21 June 2004 20:35 (twenty-one years ago)
― rasheed wallace (rasheed wallace), Monday, 21 June 2004 20:41 (twenty-one years ago)
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Monday, 21 June 2004 20:41 (twenty-one years ago)
(And did Kerry really ask McCain to consider running with him? I find that whole story/trial balloon hard to swallow.)
Nunn has pretty good creds but he's boring. But maybe that's okay.
Vilsack still seems like a strange pick, and Edwards has no gravitas whatsoever.
If he picks Cleland it will be a mortal error.
All that said, I'm actually excited to find out who Kerry will settle on.
― dan carville weiner, Monday, 21 June 2004 20:44 (twenty-one years ago)
― dan carville weiner, Monday, 21 June 2004 20:45 (twenty-one years ago)
― hstencil (hstencil), Monday, 21 June 2004 20:45 (twenty-one years ago)
― j e r e m y (x Jeremy), Monday, 21 June 2004 20:47 (twenty-one years ago)
― hstencil (hstencil), Monday, 21 June 2004 20:50 (twenty-one years ago)
I still go with Nunn, I think, though Bradley intrigues today. Bradley turns 61 later this year - OMG Bradley's Birthday is the third night (the VP speech night) of the Convention!
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Monday, 21 June 2004 20:58 (twenty-one years ago)
gabneb I think the Dems need an anti-Cheney. There's already enough similarities between Kerry and Bush (East Coast/Yale/etc.etc.etc.), and if you put someone out there with a Cheney vibe you run the risk of inflaming voters who were thinking of voting the Nader/Camejo route -- waking up all the slogans about how there's no difference between the parties etc. Obviously this hurts Democrats more than Republicans this year.
― rasheed wallace (rasheed wallace), Monday, 21 June 2004 21:00 (twenty-one years ago)
xpost: I think the Dems have some problems on the left, but far more opportunities on the Center/Right, with voters who have already decided they're willing to give up on Bush, and merely want to be convinced of the competence and palatability of the alternative.
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Monday, 21 June 2004 21:04 (twenty-one years ago)
― hstencil (hstencil), Monday, 21 June 2004 21:05 (twenty-one years ago)
― rasheed wallace (rasheed wallace), Monday, 21 June 2004 21:10 (twenty-one years ago)
― rasheed wallace (rasheed wallace), Monday, 21 June 2004 21:14 (twenty-one years ago)
Kerry Outraises, Outspends Bush in May53 minutes ago
By SHARON THEIMER, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - John Kerry is spending money almost as fast as he's collecting it, leaving him with less than half the cash reserves of President Bush and under pressure to continue a record-breaking fund-raising spree.
Kerry raised about $31 million last month and spent $32 million, finishing May with about $28 million, a monthly campaign finance report he filed late Sunday with the Federal Election Commission showed.
Kerry will need to sustain his record fund raising through July or trim spending to avoid deeper campaign debts, currently at just over $7 million. Those include about $6 million from a mortgage on his Boston home taken out during the Democratic primaries.
Kerry is expected to accept full government financing for his general-election campaign, which begins in late July when he is officially nominated at the Democratic convention in Boston. At that point, he receives a government check for about $75 million and will no longer be able to use private donations for campaigning costs.
Bush spent $22 million last month and started June with $63 million on hand, according to his latest FEC report.
Both candidates have been raising and spending money at a record pace. Each has poured tens of millions into ads in battleground states since Kerry emerged victorious from the Democratic primaries.
Kerry has set a party record with at least $148.5 million raised, including the roughly $6 million in loans, and just under $121 million spent. Bush has set a presidential record with at least $218 million raised and $152 million spent.
Kerry spent at least $59 million on ads through May. Staff and consultant pay and related costs accounted for at least $13.4 million, followed by travel, at least $12.7 million, and fund-raising costs, at least $3.2 million, an analysis by the nonpartisan Political Money Line tracking service found.
Kerry has been holding fund-raisers for weeks to rebuild his finances after the primaries, and is also raising money through online donations and mailed contributions.
Bush stopped holding fund-raisers for himself in April and has started raising money for other Republicans. He collected about $13 million last month through Internet and mailed contributions. Bush is also expected to accept $75 million in public funds for his general-election campaign when the GOP nominates him in early September in New York.
The national party committees also filed new finance reports with the FEC. They show:
- The Democratic National Committee started June with $50 million in the bank after raising about $15 million in May and spending $7.4 million. The Republican National Committee finished May with $72 million on hand. It raised $20 million and spent about $12 million last month.
- The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, trying to regain a Senate majority, outraised its GOP competitor last month, but has less cash on hand. The DSCC raised about $4 million and spent $3.3 million in May, starting June with about $8 million left and $327,000 in debts. The National Republican Senatorial Committee raised $3.4 million and spent $2.4 million in May, ending the month with $17.6 million in the bank.
- The National Republican Congressional Committee, raising money to try to keep a GOP majority in the House, began this month with about $19 million left after raising $6.7 million and spending about $6 million. Its Democratic rival had nearly $12 million on hand after raising about $5 million and spending just over $4 million last month.
― hstencil (hstencil), Monday, 21 June 2004 21:17 (twenty-one years ago)
― rasheed wallace (rasheed wallace), Monday, 21 June 2004 21:21 (twenty-one years ago)
― kyle (akmonday), Monday, 21 June 2004 21:34 (twenty-one years ago)
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Monday, 21 June 2004 22:28 (twenty-one years ago)
― Elvis Telecom (Chris Barrus), Monday, 21 June 2004 23:12 (twenty-one years ago)
I think the Dems have some problems on the left, but far more opportunities on the Center/Right, with voters who have already decided they're willing to give up on Bush, and merely want to be convinced of the competence and palatability of the alternative.
A significant number of these people will voice their protest by not voting.
― dan carville weiner, Monday, 21 June 2004 23:53 (twenty-one years ago)
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040622/capt.dxz80506220042.kerry_west_dxz805.jpg
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Monday, 21 June 2004 23:57 (twenty-one years ago)
― rasheed wallace (rasheed wallace), Monday, 21 June 2004 23:58 (twenty-one years ago)
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Monday, 21 June 2004 23:58 (twenty-one years ago)
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 00:00 (twenty-one years ago)
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 00:01 (twenty-one years ago)
― rasheed wallace (rasheed wallace), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 00:04 (twenty-one years ago)
I'm not sure Kerry and Bradley get along at all - Bradley appears to diss him in this interview
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 00:06 (twenty-one years ago)
― rasheed wallace (rasheed wallace), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 00:23 (twenty-one years ago)
Whatever happened to Tim Wirth? He was starred as the "next Gary Hart" and kind of thought to be a future presidential contender in the late 80's (also from Colorado) but after serving in the state department under clinton, it seems he disappeared.
― kyle (akmonday), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 00:38 (twenty-one years ago)
― hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 00:41 (twenty-one years ago)
While in Colorado, Kerry made a quick stop in Aspen for a $500,000 fund-raiser at the home of Michael Goldberg, president of Miami-based airline leasing company Aerolease International. Kerry invited Aspen resident and writer Hunter S. Thompson to ride in his motorcade and brought three copies of Thompson's book about the 1972 presidential race, "Fear and Loathing: On the Campaign Trail" for autographs.
"Just to put your minds all at ease, I have four words for you that I know will relieve you greatly," Kerry told the fund-raiser. "How does this sound — Vice President Hunter Thompson."
― Elvis Telecom (Chris Barrus), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 06:03 (twenty-one years ago)
― Dan I. (Dan I.), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 06:12 (twenty-one years ago)
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 16:38 (twenty-one years ago)
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 16:51 (twenty-one years ago)
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 16:55 (twenty-one years ago)
― rasheed wallace (rasheed wallace), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 16:55 (twenty-one years ago)
Winner - NunnRunners-Up - Breaux, Edwards, VilsackWild card - Bradley
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Sunday, 27 June 2004 20:07 (twenty-one years ago)
Winner: VilsackRunners-Up: Edwards, Nunn, RichardsonWild Card: Bradley
Though a significant amount of this may be wishful thinking.
― j e r e m y (x Jeremy), Sunday, 27 June 2004 20:16 (twenty-one years ago)
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Sunday, 27 June 2004 20:19 (twenty-one years ago)
Kerry/Anonymous 2004
If we told you, we'd have to kill you.
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Sunday, 27 June 2004 20:27 (twenty-one years ago)
http://img16.photobucket.com/albums/v48/w1nt3rmut3/J_Edwards.jpg
http://img16.photobucket.com/albums/v48/w1nt3rmut3/Snun.jpg
http://img16.photobucket.com/albums/v48/w1nt3rmut3/VILSACK.gif
― Dan I., Sunday, 27 June 2004 22:18 (twenty-one years ago)
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Sunday, 27 June 2004 22:25 (twenty-one years ago)
― Dan I., Sunday, 27 June 2004 22:27 (twenty-one years ago)
http://www.northlibertyiowa.org/images/governor/standlobby.jpg
...but you have a point.
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Sunday, 27 June 2004 22:36 (twenty-one years ago)
― Dan I., Sunday, 27 June 2004 22:38 (twenty-one years ago)
― Dan I., Sunday, 27 June 2004 22:43 (twenty-one years ago)
And did Kerry really ask McCain to consider running with him?If you take Kerry's word for it, he did an interview on Nightline a couple days ago and told Ted Koppel point blank that he hadn't asked anyone yet to be his running mate.
Winner - VilsackRunnersup - Edwards, Gephardt, Nunn
― daria g (daria g), Monday, 28 June 2004 01:04 (twenty-one years ago)
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Monday, 28 June 2004 19:32 (twenty-one years ago)
― dan carville weiner, Wednesday, 30 June 2004 20:34 (twenty-one years ago)
― cinniblount (James Blount), Wednesday, 30 June 2004 20:40 (twenty-one years ago)
― dan carville weiner, Wednesday, 30 June 2004 20:46 (twenty-one years ago)
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 30 June 2004 21:04 (twenty-one years ago)
― VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 30 June 2004 21:13 (twenty-one years ago)
My brother is an attorney in KC. He doesn't think much of Sebelius, but when I asked him about it last week, he was so woeful about Bush that I think she would worry him on the Kerry ticket.
― dondan atwater weiner, Wednesday, 30 June 2004 21:22 (twenty-one years ago)
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/gallery/2002/12/17/Xkerry.jpg http://www.ifs.physik.uni-stuttgart.de/Icons/ernie.bert.gif
Official Washington and the entire press corps will be rocked when Sesame Street's Bert and Ernie are picked as Kerry's VPs and a massive sunny-day-fest will begin!
So predicts a top Washington insider, who spoke to the DRUDGE REPORT on condition he not be named.
"All the signs point in their direction," snuffled the insider, one of the most influential and well-placed in the nation's capital. "It is the solution to every Kerry problem."
MORE
"There are three issues that this campaign will be decided on -- national security, the letter C, and the number 8, not necessarily in that order."
"Kerry believes that no one is better on national security than he is, he served in Vietnam after all, so he has that covered and the suggestion that he needs to strengthen the ticket with someone who has national security credentials is dismissed as foolish."
The insider continues: "The Democrats feel like reading and math are the domestic issues. But how to make them the dominant topics of conversation -- break through war and terrorism? Get two experts at once! Bert and Ernie catapult the issues out front through their use of humor and their colorful fuzzy exteriors. When they last tried to bring their message to America, Cookie Monster ate their letter- and number-shaped pecan sandies. Republicans will use the 'Monster issue' against them, saying that if Bert and Ernie can't manage other Muppets, they won't be able to tackle real issues. Their response -- Grover's Cookie Monster memoir/expose Leaving a Trail of Crumbs Behind. The book reveals Cookie Monster's dirty 'Oscar' ties as well as his youthful indiscretions with former associate 'Animal'. Plus, Bert and Ernie will benefit from powerful surrogate Elmo, who will bring their message to the morning talk shows.
"There are differences of opinion about how this election will be won but one school says its all about the base. Republicans are bumping up against the ceiling with support from their base and Democrats are sitting on the floor. Bringing two fresh faces to the campaign would change that, as Democrats unify their two key consituencies when Bert and Ernie tell Main Street how to get to Sesame Street.
"Official Washington and national media will fall in love with the idea immediately letting Kerry/B&E dominate the news through July and up to the Republican convention. They will say they are doing it for the good of the country. I am convinced this is going to happen."
"But what about having to wait to run for president? If Bush wins then Bert and Ernie are co-nominees for 2008 because it will be all Kerry's fault (who could blame one Muppet, let alone two?). If Bert and Ernie win they are tied as the first Hispanic VPs of the United States, which would help them become the first Dominican and first Puerto Rican co-presidents, respectively. It would be historic in its own right and change the nature of politics in this country, and mark their place in the history books for ever."
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 30 June 2004 22:04 (twenty-one years ago)
― cinniblount (James Blount), Thursday, 1 July 2004 04:04 (twenty-one years ago)
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 1 July 2004 20:35 (twenty-one years ago)
― kyle (akmonday), Thursday, 1 July 2004 20:48 (twenty-one years ago)
― VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 1 July 2004 20:56 (twenty-one years ago)
― Dan I., Thursday, 1 July 2004 21:55 (twenty-one years ago)
according to my sources, which are quasi-reliable, kerry is looking to get gephardt as his runningmater. i'm going to keep the typo because it's more amusing that way.
― j e r e m y (x Jeremy), Friday, 2 July 2004 01:47 (twenty-one years ago)
― kyle (akmonday), Friday, 2 July 2004 06:30 (twenty-one years ago)
― Dan I. (Dan I.), Friday, 2 July 2004 08:51 (twenty-one years ago)
― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 16 July 2004 14:11 (twenty-one years ago)
I like Edwards as far as his charisma goes. He blew Kerry off the set on 60 Minutes.
― dan carville weiner, Friday, 16 July 2004 14:35 (twenty-one years ago)
― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 16 July 2004 15:14 (twenty-one years ago)
― Symplistic (shmuel), Friday, 16 July 2004 15:49 (twenty-one years ago)
― Pleasant Plains (Pleasant Plains), Friday, 16 July 2004 16:06 (twenty-one years ago)
― kyle (akmonday), Friday, 16 July 2004 16:16 (twenty-one years ago)
As for the 'bounce', with some subscription to Pleasant Plains' divided-electorate caveat above, there certainly is one. The evidence is as follows (remember announcement was 7/6 AM; * indicates poll included Nader):
NBC poll (7/6): Kerry 54-43
*NBC/WSJ poll (6/25-28): Bush 45-44*NBC poll (7/6): Kerry 49-41
*IBD/TIPP poll (6/14-19): Bush 44-41*IBD/TIPP poll (7/6-10): Kerry 47-43
*Gallup poll (6/9-30): Bush 45-44*Gallup/CNN/USAT poll (7/8-11): Kerry 50-45
Rasmussen poll (7/6): Bush 47-46Rasmussen poll (7/10): Kerry 49-45
Time poll (6/2-4): Bush 49-48Time poll (7/6-8): Kerry 49-45
Newsweek poll (7/8-9): Kerry 51-45
CBS/NYT poll (6/23-37): Kerry 45-44CBS poll (7/6): Kerry 49-44
*Zogby poll of Tennessee (6/15-20): Bush 57.4-38.6*Zogby poll of Tennessee (7/6-10): Tie at 47.5
*Zogby poll of Ohio (6/15-20): Bush 50.5-45.1*Zogby poll of Ohio (7/6-10): Kerry 48.6-47.9
*Zogby poll of New Hampshire (6/15-20): Kerry 46.2-42.9*Zogby poll of New Hampshire (7/6-10): Kerry 49.3-40.3
*Zogby poll of Wisconsin (6/15-20): Kerry 50.6-46.2*Zogby poll of Wisconsin (7/6-10): Kerry 53.3-43.9
*Zogby poll of Missouri (6/15-20): Bush 48.6-47.9*Zogby poll of Missouri (7/6-10): Kerry 50.1-46.8
*Quinnipiac poll of Pennsylvania (6/21-22): Kerry 44-43*Quinnipiac poll of Pennsylvania (7/6-11): Kerry 46-41
Mason-Dixon poll of North Carolina (5/14-17): Bush 48-41Mason-Dixon poll of North Carolina (7/12-13): Bush 48-45
The big poll cited to show that there was no bounce was the AP/Ipsos poll (7/5-7) that showed Bush up 49-45. The AP/Ipsos poll has never shown a Kerry lead (except in a pre-Edwards poll that included Edwards as the prospective veep). While Bush did go up 3 points in that poll since the pre-Edwards poll, Kerry's support stayed the same - Bush's jump came entirely out of Nader, who went down 3.
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 16 July 2004 17:21 (twenty-one years ago)
Some more state polls:
Florida (SUSA 6/12-14): Bush 50-43Florida (SUSA 7/9-11): Kerry 47-44
*Florida (Zogby 6/15-20): 50.3-46.1*Florida (Zogby 7/6-10): Kerry 50.8-44.2
*Michigan (Zogby 6/15-20): Bush 46.8-46.1*Michigan (Zogby 7/6-10): Kerry 50-44.1
South Carolina (SUSA 7/10-12): Bush 51-44
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 16 July 2004 17:43 (twenty-one years ago)
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 16 July 2004 17:45 (twenty-one years ago)
― Symplistic (shmuel), Friday, 16 July 2004 19:38 (twenty-one years ago)
― Symplistic (shmuel), Friday, 16 July 2004 19:42 (twenty-one years ago)
nader is such a putz.
― amateur!st (amateurist), Friday, 16 July 2004 19:43 (twenty-one years ago)
I heard the Nader/Dean debate. Not that exciting, but it did have one great moment (paraphrased, perhaps)...
Moderator: "Governor Dean, do you have any advice for Mr. Nader?"Dean: "Yeah, lighten up."
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 16 July 2004 19:56 (twenty-one years ago)
― amateur!st (amateurist), Friday, 16 July 2004 19:58 (twenty-one years ago)