Impact of the VP pick on the vote...none at all!

At least as far as helping a candidate win...

Studies show that VP choices have no affect on the percentage of votes the ticket will receive in the general election. Talk of a candidate winning us this state or that state are unsupported by the evidence.

The top of the ticket, however, does have an impact. The Top of the ticket is good for a 3% bump in the votes received for the Party that has a nominee from that state...

So Kerry will get us a 3% bump in the polls...

There is no data to support that regionally balanced tickets help either.

Since we are in the final death struggle of a realignment, much of the strategies we believed use to work 20 years ago no longer apply.

The only thing a VP pick can do is hurt you. If you need to help out the top of the ticket with the second place position, than you are already in bad shape. For some anecdotal information...consider the 1960 and 2000 elections...both were considered inexperienced and had to shore up that inexperience with a more experienced running mate. Hell, Bush had to name a whole cabinet before he could fool the general public that he'd be alright with the keys...

VPs may help with turnout of specific groups, but again, not supported by the evidence...in fact, the selection of a VP who energizes one group may energize the opposition's counter group...

Suffice it to say, history suggests that Kerry will not pick any of the candidates who ran in this year's primary, also, very unlikely that the running mate will come from the Congress...and he'd be foolish to do so....

the actual selection will be more in line with what Kerry's personal desires are...and probably no one we have even considered...

We can say more of what the candidate will not be with high probability:

The candidate will not be...
1) From the NE
2) A Member of Congress
3) Picked to deliver a specific state or states (though this may be the excuse given)
4) One of the other Dem primary candidates

Balancing the ticket has matter less and less in the most recent races...the focus has been more on the top of the ticket..

What should be considered though is that the eventual nominee will be the potential nominee front runner in 2008 or 2012, depending on what happens ( :hi: Sen Lieberman in 2004)...

before the flames begin that I said probability!

There is always a chance of an event occuring....it is just that it is not a high one...

Also, since we are dealing with such a small number of cases, the chance of being wrong is higher....but not that high....

If I had to bet on what the eventual nominee looked like, it would be someone who had:

1) Executive experience (i.e. a governor)
2) Comes from the south or Rocky Mountain states
3) Represents a specific group within the Party (the selection of Richardson may piss of AA voters who feel like the Party is passing them over) more likely a woman....

Anyone fit this description?

Janet Napolitano.

I think that is the only person that comes close to fitting all your criteria.

1-she hasn't even served a full term as governor
2-she's not exactly insanely popular in Arizona. She only got 46% of the vote.

I wouldn't mind to have a female VP but sadly we don't have much of a viable candidate, it's really a shame Jennifer Granholm was born in Canada since she'd be perfect in the future though.

she has the same problem with time in office...

And since I'm in Michigan.....F*ck NO!!!!!

Leave Gov. Hottie where she is!!!!!!!!!!

2012 is what I'm thinking of.

but she hasn't been gov long...right?

That might hurt...

Mar. 07, 2004
...
While Kerry secured the nomination only days ago, he holds a 49 to 43 percent lead over a president who just four months ago led every potential Democratic challenger by as many as 18 percentage points.
...
A Kerry-Graham ticket leads Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney 49 to 44 percent, the same margin as a Kerry-Edwards team. A ticket that includes Florida's junior senator, Bill Nelson, leads Bush-Cheney by only 2 percentage points.
...
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/8125717.htm
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=442605

When was the last time the Democrats won without at least one Southerner on the ticket? 1948, when Senator Barkley (D-KY) was Truman's running mate? Or 1944, when Truman was Roosevelt's running mate?

The only times since 1948 when "regional balance" was not an apparent requirement for a Democratic victory were the Clinton-Gore years.