Sen. Kerry, unite our party by choosing Sen. Edwards as VP!

In the first primaries since suspending his candidacy, Democratic voters have spoken loudly and clearly about who THEY would like to see as your running mate--- Sen. John Edwards. In two states, FL and LA, voters preferred him to their own state's senators; in FL, their preference for Edwards over Sen. Graham was almost 5:2.

We need unity, Sen. Kerry, and you can unite us by choosing Sen. Edwards as your running mate.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/dates/03/09/index.html

going to need when all the financial bubbles burst and we're looking at a second great depression.

:shrug:

the only duo that beats Bush.

Was that for real?

Did anyone see the actual poll?

It's obviously only speculation.

FL and LA are winnable, and voters in BOTH states prefer Sen. Edwards to anyone else.

John Lewis adds ZIP to the ticket.

Edwards would CREAM Lewis in any head-to-head poll among Democrats...

If GA is 'in play', a ham sandwich could serve as VP... :eyes:

The minute Dems begin to premise their unity on their favorite VP selection is the moment at which we hand four more years to Bunnypants and Tragicomedy Inc.

Kerry needs to select someone who is ready to be president at any moment's notice. We need Edwards fighting in the Senate.

his half of the implicit bargain the Democrats made during the primaries. We like John Edwards alot, but we're going to go with the person with more "experience" so long as the person we actually like more ends up on the ticket.

I've talked to hundreds of voters in the last two months and that was the message I got from a huge percentage of voters.

He's not running for re-election, and he IS ready to be President.

but I still think Kerry needs to select someone with more experience.

I heard someone say that the VP selection can't really help a ticket too much, but it CAN hurt - I'm persuaded by this.

:shrug:

isn't this a great way to school the guy for a couple of years so that he can be the best president we've ever had?

No one votes for President looking at the possibility he may die, and how would his VP perform. Dan Quayle--- need I say more?

That one had me rolling on the floor.

but I think there are better choices out there.

What about Joe Biden?

If you're looking to help the ticket, why would you NOT choose the person the Democratic voters clearly prefer in at least 2 key, 'battleground' states? :shrug:

PS--- He's also well-liked in IA and WI, pretty clearly.

that this would happen.

Kerry has gone out of his way to say he hasn't made up his mind, I guess. But when you talk to dozens and dozens of voters who all say they're voting for Kerry and want Edwards as VP, I believe the idea is coming from somewhere, and to not carry this out would be like a broken promise at this point.

that Edwards should be his VP. Every single one.

Many Kerry voters seemed to be under the impression they were voting for a Kerry/Edwards ticket. The let down would be palpable if Kerry didn't choose Edwards. The spin in the media would be that Kerry didn't want an unfavorable comparison between Kerry and Edwards.

The enthusiasm for the ticket would be dampened withour Edwards.

Biden is from Delaware and that state is so small that he won't bring many electoral votes, and have to eventually run someone new for an open seat. Biden is less likely to bring extra states. Edwards might bring WV,LA,FL,AK maybe NC or even VA - anywhere where they want Southern style but could be swung to Dems. Edwards has higher name recognition.

But, if not Edwards, Biden would certainly be near the top of my list because he is so articulate and swift on his feet (and well dressed:)). If Biden had run and increased his national level of name recognition, he might outdo Edwards, IMO.

But Biden didn't. Edwards already has advertized and come up with high favorables. Edwards will require less advertizing dollars and since he is already somewhat defined will be more difficult for Bushies to ill-define.

Kerry's weak spot, in public percepetion, is already Defense and National Security.

The man is highly intelligent and would be MASSIVELY well-briefed beforehand. You give him far to little credit, and Cheney far too much, IMO.

(ie, people lives and happiness at stake, along with millions of dollars).

Cheney has made decisions with stakes that high, but he's never had to win a debate to achieve those things.

Edwards has proven himself to be a capable debater, and I seriously doubt Cheney would lay a glove on him.

First - Edwards is the most likely to shine in a debate but I will say that I think this is not reason enough to select him. Clark would be obliterated in debate, not because of lack of knowledge but poor debating skills, his inability to use up his alloted time or to switch the subject over to something he scores well on.

Kerry, IMO, has run a campaign based entirely on his war hero status and being surrounded by Vets, and needs to round out his non-military credentials - especially the "he understands people like me" credential - the "I feel your pain credential". Edwards helps dispell the elitest charge - and this is Kerry's greatest weakness.

On the issue of experience to be VP or Pres: Edwards would make a great president and the experience issue is overated, especially in terms of type of experience. For example, Cheney has oodles of experience but this doesn't give him the qualities required to be a good president. Edwards comes at the presidency with the life experience and intelligence required to make good decisions for Americans - and to be a great international reprentative of what America should ideally be about - and this is really the most important credential, IMO.

"Bush is out of the mainstream."

This is where Kerry can either win or lose the fight against Bush and this is what Edwards brings to the table: "George Bush's values are not American values. Bush is insulated from real Americans."

Kerry needs this and Edwards has got it in spades.

John Edwards shows George Bush up as the drunken, coked-up, blueblood frat boy that he is!

I'm sure you want to put a guy on the ticket that was less and less liked the more voters saw him. Clark -- nice resume', bad politician.

I didn't know that....

Edwards, instead of the Clark campaign. Oh, I forgot about blaming the media as well.

Those are the hopeless ones...

he blamed the Clintons. hehe.

like a squab on a spit.

Steal it if you wish. I stole it from jenk. Spread the word. :)

I have sig lines turned off because of the obnoxiously large pics some people insert in them. I'll turn it back on and look, though. :hi:

People love him here. Can you think of VP that would help out better in BOTH the south and the Midwest?

He's well-liked there, too, pretty obviously. And OH, and FL, and LA, and... ;)

2 senators on the ticket ain't gonna happen.. Even one is a long shot, historically speaking. Hell, I would have rather had Edwards than Kerry, but they won't both be on the ticket.

At one point, maybe it did, but not this year, IMO...

See my response to this argument if you're interested in my reasoning.

Instead of catagorically ruling out two Senators because the last time two Senators won was Kennedy/Johnson, we should analyze the past from the perspective of today.

As an example,I don't think there was any precedent for a governor from a small state winning the Presidency before Carter. But Carter and then Clinton pulled it off. It could be that the nominee selection process in the early part of this century, controlled largely by political insiders, did not favor the emergence of a governor of a small state as the nominee. The modern primary process, decided by Democratic voters at large rather than politicos, allowed governors of small states like Carter and Clinton.

It may be that two Senators do not normally run together because the modern primary process has favored governors and that a ticket of two senators with long voting records would be at a disadvantage in the general election.

However, this year two Senators did emerge from the primary process as front runners. Their voting records are consistent with each other's and Edwards has a very short voting record that is not much of a liability.

The appeal of a Kerry/Edwards ticket today should not be dismissed out of hand becuase it never happened in the past.

Edwards doesn't do anything for me personally. I'd rather see him pick Clark.

The spin would be that Kerry was threatened by Edwards charisma and ability to connect with voters or that the Democratic establishment didn't want Edwards to emerge as frontrunner in 2012-more Hillary conspiracies.

When asked their preference for a running mate for John Kerry, 51 percent chose North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, the most support of any candidate. New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton tied Edwards among black voters.

http://www.newsobserver.com/24hour/election/story/1198111p-8174326c.html

:D

primaries? 10 Percent? Fifteen percent? I thought I'd read turnout was very low. With Kerry having the nomination all but sewn up, most rank and file democrats stayed home.

it's gotta be him.

44-19. So much for the 'We gotta have Graham to get Florida' school-of-thought...

:)

Edwards may or may not be the best choice, but this logic doesn't hold up. By the time of the Florida vote, Edwards was the identified non Kerry for most core party voters, and he benefited from that for that reason. The small number of votes Clark or Dean or Lieberman or Gephardt or Graham got in Florida is not indicative of the support they would have had had if they were fully in the race. Edwards had been the last guy standing other than Kerry and minor candidates. In fact I think Graham had already endorsed Kerry.

More to the point, the value of someone like Graham in Florida, if nowhere else, is that he appeals to a broad base of Florida voters, not just the hard core Democrats who turn out to vote in a primary that doesn't matter anymore when no real important races are on the ballot.

Edwards did well in Florida under the circumstances, but don't blow it all out of context.

The question was very straight-forward to FL voters, and they clearly said that they preferred Edwards as the VP nominee over Graham. The remainder of your argument is interesting, in the abstract, but it in no way negates the clear choice of Floroda Democrats yesterday.

Am rushing to leave town for work trip and it just went by me that the focus was on the exit polling on VP rather than the votes Edwards got in Florida. Sorry. However the rest of my statement still stands, that was not a representative sample of Florida voters in a General Election, nor do primary voters usually mirror the opinions of a larger cross section of voters registered with a political party, especially when the primary is not hotly contested.

That's true, of course, but good God, for anyone to outpoll Graham sorta tells me that the "We gotta have Graham to win Florida" thing is grossly overstated...

I can accept that part about having to have Graham being grossly overstated. Of course last time, anything that would have gotten us another 1000 votes COUNTED would have been helpful.

Hell, just re-counting them statewide would have won it for Gore. Am I the only person alive who doesn't think that would've been Herculean task? (rhetorical question). :)

representative of Democrats the sample is, the better Edwards does. His value increases once more Republicans and Ind's enter the voter pool.

... of Independents and crossover Republicans. THAT should cause some folks to sit up and take notice, if they're looking at the GE...

I grant that. Clark has cross over appeal also, but I find his positions on issues to overall be more liberal and to my liking. I like that combo. OK, I am out the door. Be gone for several days. All the best...

a model for the kind of liberal progressivism that America needs right now.

I have a hard time finding anything in his message or his life that doesn't relate or embody exactly the kind of liberalism I preach here at DU and out in the real world, and it's all wrapped up in a package that is not only electable, but one that, once elected, can draw people on the right over to the left.

I see him as a huge threat to the project of the right wing.

I don't see that with Clark.

I find some aspects of Clark's persona probelmatic -- being a warrior, for one, and making most of his money now off of the corrupt corporate system which Edwards promises to fix. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with being a warrior or with making money after a lifetime of loyal service to liberal internationalism. I'm just saying that those aren't the symbols that draw America away from the brink at which we find ourselves today.

That's why i supported Edwards in the first place. We need his input as VP because he definitly more liberal than Kerry. That "can draw people on the right over to the left."

Very well-put AP :)

And thanks for the kind words.

Obviously it doesn't have to be Edwards, just like it doesn't have to be Clark, or Graham. or Richardson, or Clinton, etc. etc. etc.

I am for Clark, but I am thoughtful enough that I can make a case for someone over him. The same is true about every candidate. For example, the working relationships between the Presidential candidate and the VP candidate, and the staff for both people, is not a trivial concern while trying to run two simultaneous National campaigns under high stress, not to mention once the election is over and we win. Good relationships increase our chances of victory, bad ones hurt them. I can not speak knowledgeably about all of those critical relationships, can you? And that is only one variable that may not jump out at us sitting here. Some major donors may be more enthused about one candidate over another. One candidate may have an excellent organization in place that can fully mobilize quickly in an identified key swing state if that person is put on the ticket. I'm talking organization now, not polling data, something that might not be apparent from the outside. It goes on and on. A lot may depend on the campaign strategy that Kerry decides he wants to use, which issues he wants to carry the spear on and which he wants to let his VP running mate handle etc. etc. etc.

The current popularity of different potential running mates as measured in early March is not a big piece of the puzzle. People don't vote for the VP, they vote for the top slot. The average Democratic voter could have cared less about Wesley Clark last August, or John Edwards last December. General popularity changes quickly. If Kerry picks Nelson from Florida next week, there will be excitement over him at the Convention, no matter what people are saying now. I guarentee it. In 2000 the election wasn't about Chaney or Lieberman. Small details will tip the scales on this call.

Who does Edwards help bring to the party that wouldn't have voted for Kerry anyway??

He got most of their crossover votes in WI and GA both.

:)

And with Edwards on the ticket we can get those independent votes.

appreciates the significance of that poll.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

In every open primary, Edwards won the Independent and crossover Republican vote.

Let's the get the moderate and moderate with populist tendencies wings of the party together!

Not included in the exit poll: voters shat upon on March 2, when Edwards couldn't miss prime time for his speech for the closing of the polls.
In Cali and NY they are mightily pissed.
Also, people disgusted by the Shelton/Milosevic connection

Does it? Hell, he even beat Sen. Graham 5:2 in Florida!

That is not what the exit polls say.