Has ANY presidential candidate ever picked...

one of his primary opponents to be his VP?

It was a bad choice, IMO

I also think it was a bad choice (similar to Dukakis choosing Benson). But it did help carry (steal, whatever...) the '60 election.

Two others that I can think of in our modern primary system: Stevenson picked Kefauver in 1956, and Reagan picked Bush in 1980.

Going back through history, when things were still decided in smoke-filled rooms, there were a number of them. The most notorious is when Garfield was paired with Arthur, who was a candidate of the Stalwarts (backers of U.S. Grant). When Garfield was asassinated, his shooter shouted "I am a Stalwart, and Arthur is now President."

primaries really are a fairly new process, even in 1960 though Kennedy won some famous primaries to "prove" his electability, the conventions were the primary means of choosing a candidate.

It has not happened since Reagan picked Bush in 1980. However, this year could be different because the primary has been over for a long time. Still, it is difficult to pick someone who bad mouthed you just a few months earlier. It gives the opposition a lot of material.

Kerry that I can recall...

Clark and his campaign are the ones people point to for the "Kerry slept with an intern" rumor. Edwards did say some harsher things during his last couple weeks. Still, most people don't remember that. It does seem to be water under the bridge for most people.

Once again, you're believing the right wing echo chamber.
This has been bunked and debunked so many times, it's not funny.

http://www.campaigndesk.org/archives/000556.asp

between INTERN and INTERNAL, which is what Clark said. Matt Drudge is to blame for the Kerry intern rumors.

92.

nt.

He was one of the big-name democrats at the time.

I'm not trying to argue with you, but he wasn't. You can check it out.

I just remember watching a political documentary about the 90's. I remember it saying that Gore was one of the big-name democrats in '92 and then out of nowhere Clinton won the nomination.

Gore was the one that actually used the infamous Willie Horton ad originally.

in 1956 and they were opponents--Estes even won the NH primary and a few others.

Stevensen opened the VP nomination to the convention and stayed out of it to try and get the Democrats excited. They picked Kefauver over JFK, whom it probably worked out best for.

See the abpve posts. It's not that rare.

n/t

did pretty good too

thanks for clarifying

Gore ran in 1988 and won 5 states before dropping out when Dukakis started sweeping things. Clinton's main opponents in 1992 were Paul Tsongas and Jerry Brown. Also Mario Cuomo in early polls, but Cuomo declined to run.

I don't think he ran in '92.

Usually rivals aren't picked because by the convention they aren't on the best of terms. When you go back to 1960 and look at some of the things LBJ said about JFK at the convention itself in Los Angeles(Kennedy had not clinched the nomination when the convention began), it is just amazing that LBJ was chosen. It was a cold political calculation that worked.

nominees he has had vetted so far were all opponents for the nomination (Clark, Edwards, and Gephardt, the only one he has seriously looked into so far who was not an opponent is Tom Vilsack), you know he is considering them. It is my feeling that he will select Gephardt, regardless of the issue of who is the most popular nominee.
When you also look at the prior VP nominees, very few of them were the most popular choices in the public eye.

Gephardt would not be my first or second choice, but the more I think about it, the more I think it would an extremely astute move.

Is where Kerry will win this campaign, right now with most of the midwest and the rust belt moving to kerry territory, Kerry is currently sitting on 246 electoral votes in states where he is ahead of Bush, 157 of those in 11 states that are solid blue, 89 electoral votes in 7 states ;eaining towards Kerry. Right now Bush can only claim 14 states for a total of 129 electoral votes 99 of them om 11 soolid red states where Bush leads with double digits, and 30 electoral votes in 3 states leaning towards Bush. In states that are too close to tell, Kerry is leading Bush in Nevada, Iowa, Missouri,Pennsylvania and Florida for a total of 71 electoral votes.

Bush is ahead in Arizona, West Virginia,and Tennessee

for 26 electoral votes.

Which will give Kerry a grand total of 317 electoral votes.

Bush a grand toral of 155 electoral votes.

If Bush takes EVERY state left in which no polls have been done, which carry 66 electoral votes, Bush goes up to a grand total of 221 electoral votes. If you look at the map Kerry's strategy of winning without the south is playing out well. But in order for Kerry's strategy to bring him to a win, Kerry must retain the midwest, where hs is a good deal ahead of Bush, but also has the most states that are leaning towards Kerry but are too close to call. Kerry could even lose Florida, and still beat Bush in the elecctoral college, as ling as he keeps the other states. He absolutely needs the midwest. He needs Gephardt, Vilsack, or Even Bayh.

Geography is key, but profile matters, even in your home state.

SUSA just put out an Iowa poll in which Kerry DROPPED 5 pts. from a straight Kerry-Bush/Cheney matchup, to a Kerry/Vilsack vs. Bush/Cheney matchup. This isn't to say that Vilsack would hurt Kerry, as polls are random and you have error, but adding Visack clearly didn't just automatically toss Kerry the Veep's homestate. (Part of the reason for this is likely because choosing someone from IA won't give you much of boost if you've already made it your second home during the past 2 years of primary campaigning).

Gephardt would be an unimaginable disaster. He got mauled in Iowa in the primary by a northeasterner--mainly because he is old news and has the stigma of a boring and consistent loser. Plus, old school unionism + pro-war + tepid social centrism is not going to motivate a lot of folks. Putting him on the ticket means destroying your volunteer base.

Bayh has burned too many bridges and wouldn't carry his home state. Vilsack seems unobjectionable enough but has 0 national profile, and although I'm confident he'd tip over Iowa (especially since Bush would likely concede it fairly early if Kerry picked him), I can't see him doing much in the other states. If you have no national profile to speak of, then you're expecting people to vote for you just because they've heard that you come from the next state over. I don't think that's going to happen.

Between a candidate who is running for president, and one who is seletect tobe the VP. No matter what If Gephardt would be a disaster, Edwards or Clark would be more of a disaster. Kerry must win the midwest. It is the ONLY strategy that will win him the presidency. WHile Edwards did well in Iowa, he only did well in Wisconsin cherry picking a state and staying awake campaigning for 24 hours a day for more than a week in order to do well in that state.HE got a brief boost because of the Iowa upset, but began to rapidly trail off after that. Differet factors lead to success a vice presidential nomination than do in the presidential run. Political connections nd a long political history are the one factor common to almost every VP selection since Richard Nixon. This counts out both Edwards and Clark.

There are two things obvious about Kerrys campaign right now. First, he intends to win without the south. Secondly, he intends to win with the Northern tier of states east of the Rocky Mountains and the far west. Even the slightest look at a map of the states where Kerry is strong, and the states where Bush is strong show that fact. Kerry will not waste time trying to beat Bush in the solid red states. Three quarters of these have Bush leading with double digits. Kerry is not going to waste his energy or resources trying to unseat Bush in states like Alabama, Where Bush is polling 54 percent to Kerry's 29 percent, or Oklahoma, with Bush at 54 percent Kerry at 33 percent.
Or even in North Carolina, where he is closer to BUsh than in other southern staes, but nowhere near as close as he is in the midwest states that are tooclose to tell. He is going to go after states that are too close to tell, which have a far less steep climb to actually beat Bush.

He is going to go after the states where Bush is weakening, like Missouri, a Bush win in 2000, and now a state too close to tell. Now it is far more likely for a favorite son to take those states than Edwards or Clark. Favorite soon status always adds something to a VP candidate, regardless of how that candidate has done in a presidential run. Edwards cannot help Kerry in the Midwest or Rust belt, Clark cannot. Gephardt CAN deliver the people on the ground to do this. Kerry will need feet on the ground that can be provided by the unions especially the Teamsters, who have made it clear that they want Gephardt as the VP. It will be a disaster if a large union does not give their ALL to the candidate. even if the suport the democratic candidate in name. Gephardt has very, very deep and long term ties with those organizations, Clark and Edwards do not.

All Edwards has is popularity, little else, and a good deal that is detrimental to a Vice Presidential nominee.

If it is not Gephardt, It will be Bayh or Vilsack long before it is Edwards or Clark.

Gep cannot guarantee OH and will have close to zero impact geographically elsewhere. His union ties couldn't even get him the majority of union support or key endorsements in IA. So he's a loser. If you're looking for a midwesterner, you unfortunately don't have a lot of choices. The Teamsters, by the way, are hardly a reliable constituency, given their coziness with Republicans. I'd much rather have the millions of vets and military that Clark would lock up--you're right about Edwards, though: if Kerry doesn't make a thrust to the south, then Edwards has no useful constituency, and his home state would be very questionable. Clark could also potentially help with a good chunk of the SW and has big time appeal in Indian country, BTW.

Bayh is no longer even a serious consideration--he hasn't even been vetted yet, and I doubt he ever will. He can't deliver Indiana, doesn't have much regional profile, and has been actively involved in internecine sniping recently versus the Dean/Gore faction of the party. Not good.

And you can't go tu quoque on me, because I'm not pushing either Edwards or Clark super-hard, although I certainly think that they would NOT be more of a disaster than Gephardt. Vilsack might be a better choice, but, look, if he can't bring Kerry out of the MoE for the state in which he is currently governor (and which is the only one in which he has any profile to speak of), then his comparative advantage drops to nil.

I don't know who's the best pick; I just know it's not at all Gephardt.

Other than opinion about Gephardts recent actions regarding the War In Iraq, does anyone think that Gephardt would be a disaster. One can think of absolutely reason to justify such a statement about Gephardt other than his support for the Iraq Resolution for oppiosing Gephardt. In fact, that is literally the ONLY reason that people on DU use to justify a Gephardt nomination being a disaster, yet Gephardt and Edwards took identical stances regarding this issue when it came time to vote on it. There is absolutely NOTHING about Gephardts record as congressmen that can in any way, shape or form justify the statement that selecting him as VP would be a disaster.

However there is not justification in any way shape of form to justify the opinion that Clarke could deliver the Southwest. Nor for Edwards delivering any area of the South other than his own state. If you look at Gephardt and make the statement that he couldn't take Iowa, which is in his own region, you must concede that outside of their own home states, neither Edwards or Clark could defeat the NEW ENGLAND LIBERAL, a relatively hated commodity in the south. The fact that neither Edwards or Clark could not defeat Kerry in any other southern state or an any other region is a strong indication that they can do nothing to assist Kerry in his campaign. Given this, Gephardt has considerable more to offer than either Clark or Edwards, as neither of them could beat another candidate in their own region in a sustained battle for those states. Southern state after Southern state, someone from outside their own region of the nation trounced them in the primaries. If that does not spell disaster, nothing does.

Gephardt has had years of political campaigning, and has won a lot of elections, and lost a few. Edwards dropped out of his senatorial race when it started looking like he would not be re-elected He has two political campaigns under his belt.One for the senate, he won. one for the democartic nomination, he lost, and he didnt reach enough delegate votes to be the kind of threat that Lyndon JOhnson was to Kennedy in 1960. Clark, has even less to offer. His delivering the Southwest is at best a wild speculation. He has one political campaign under his belt, and he lost it loser is never a good credential for nomination to political office.

Thus,there is far more to suggest that either Edwards or Clarke would be less of a disaster than Gephardt

In fact Gephardt is to this VP nomination process what Kerry was to the primaries. Kerry won because of his years of experience, and his status as Washington insider. The voting democratic public rejected everything that Edwards, Clark and Dean were, and accepted everything that Kerry is. The nearest match to that in the VP arena is Gephardt. He has exactly the same credentials that got Kerry the nomination.

It's happened a few times. No discussion here is necessary.

:argh:
Your Man in the Faculty Lounge:hangover: checkin' over that H.S. History curriculum,
GG :smoke:

I had always thought Clinton ran against Gore in the 92 primaries.

Not 1992. I was a Gore delegate to the Texas state convention in 1988.:)