Of the 3 VP candidates being vetted, who do you prefer?

[Padraig18]

Poll question: Of the 3 VP candidates being vetted, who do you prefer?

Kerry's campaign has leaked 3 names as being under serious consideration as the VP nominee. Please choose your preferred candidate from among the 3 whose names were leaked. Thanks! :)

[Blue Gardener]

1. Edwards

Vilsack is a great Governor, but I think Edwards has the charisma it takes to really connect with voters.

[Padraig18]

2. I agree.

Not only does he have great name recognition, but he also has high 'favorables' among Democrats, and clearly demonstrated his appeal to Independents and moderate Republicans in the open primaries, during his presidential bid.

The 'smart' choice, without a doubt.

:thumbsup:

[Skwmom]

9. The channeling of an unborn child candidate.

You've got to be kidding. If Edwards is the VP nominee I can hear the debate question now: Mr. Edwards, the NY Times has reported your ability to channel unborn children. In closing arguments you stated "She speaks to you through me. "And I have to tell you right now — I didn't plan to talk about this — right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking to you." http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/31/politics/campaign/31EDWA.html?ex=139...

Do you really have the ability to channel unborn children (like John Edwards of Crossing Over ) or did you lie to the jury in making your closing arguments (which is reminiscent of a certain democratic president who lied under oath to a grand jury)? In addition, doesn't either answer to this question really raise serious doubt about whether you are fit to be a heartbeat away from assuming the highest office in this land?

In addition, if you are going to portray yourself as a populist you'd better darn well have the record to support that contention (which Edwards does not).

Does Kerry want to lose in a landslide?

[DjTj]

20. Skwmom, if Edwards is chosen ...

... will you stop posting this message and will you vote for Kerry in November?

[atre]

59. Anti-lawyer types flock GOP

I don't know what she was like before the primary season started, but she doesn't talk like a Democrat or a liberal.

[surfermaw]

75. Wolf, do you really think somone will listen to you hype.

[Padraig18]

21. Is this the 932nd or 933rd time you've posted this crapola, Skwmom?

Give it a fucking rest!

[AP]

24. Here's my comment on this load of crapola:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=513001&mesg_id=513156&page=

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=513001&mesg_id=513254

And if you want to talk about George Millers criticism of Edwards for not supporting the sort of program for brain-damage baby cases that Cheney wants to see for asbestos claims, try this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=513001&mesg_id=513243&page=

[atre]

58. Every post of yours is an Edwards bash

or a lawyer-bash?

Why do you have such disdain for lawyers who represent poor people?Tell you what... go look up the many studies performed since the 1960s on the availability of civil legal services to poor people. The poor generally get only token legal representation, if at all; the only time they are afforded any quality legal assistance is in the context of personal injury suits taken on a contingency fee arrangement.

It's fair if you don't like the inequality built into the foundations of the American legal system (I do quite a bit of that myself), but it's insane to attack the only ones whose work does anything to alleviate that inequality.

[surfermaw]

76. Edwards made it possible for one child to sleep in her bed at home

Yes the one little girl who had her insides almost sucked out, is sleeping at home at night in her own bed and being fed five hours at night by a tube, with out John Edwards, her parents wouldn't have been able to keep her..yes the money Edwards won for her is keeping this one little girl home with her parents, and think about it , this same manuf..had already had complaints about the pump,what a pity Edwards didn't get the first case, then the little girl may have never suffered the terrible accident.

[AP]

77. There had been something like 27 other people injured by that drain

cover before Edwards took the case.

Not only did Edwards make sure that that girl could sleep at home with her parents, and not only did he make sure that there wouldn't be children in the future injured and killed by that drain cover, but he also righted and economic wrong.

The only reason that manufacturer didn't stop selling that drain cover was because of money. They knew about the earlier injuries (Edwards asked for a discovery order for documents revealing previous incidents with the cover and the when the defendant said that it was taking a while to satisfy it because they had to put the documents on a truck and drive them from Wisconsin to North Carolina, the judge told the defendant that they were in BIG trouble). That company made a lot of money selling those drains even though they KNEW they were dangerous.

Edwards made sure that that money didn't stay in the hands of people who didn't deserve it.

[w4rma]

60. That's John Edward. John Edwards is the Senator. (nt)

[Leilani]

3. None of the Above!

EOM

[Jivenwail]

4. ITA

None of the above.

[Fitzovich]

5. Of the three

I would go with Edwards. I think Wes Clark might also be an option. Gephardt I would peg as Sec of Labor. But, I am sure we will find out soon enough.

[Drifter]

6. Oh Christ ...

If he picks Gep, I'm leaving the party. That is worse than Gore picking Leib. I hope he is not even considering him.

Cheers
Drifter

[bklyncowgirl]

7. None of the Above

Edwards would be a popular choice in the party, a good speaker, but he's light on experience and lacks foreign policy knowledge. Cheney'd eat him alive.

Gephardt: Great another Washington insider. Bush'll run that photo of Gep grinning away behind the Shrub as he signs the IWR. Could provide some blue collar cover for Kerry but that's about it.

Vilsack: Don't know much about him, frankly except for Midwest credentials. He's not from Washington which is a plus.

I'm for Bob Graham myself though that's not looking to good these days.

[spooky3]

8. Sorry, I don't think Tricky Dicky Cheney can touch JRE.

Cheney is an excellent liar, but JRE has many years of experience exposing that in his adversaries.

[fujiyama]

10. If it's between

these three, then I'd go with Edwards by far.

I would still rather keep the field a bit broader and consider Clark, among others.

However, I wouldn't be dissapointed in a Kerry/Edwards ticket either.

[Freddie Stubbs]

11. There are probably more being vetted

They only 'leaked' the names of three that most people assumed were being considered.

[DaveSZ]

12. On that list:

Edwards is by far the best choice.

[chimpymustgo]

13. Kerry/Edwards '04. Yeah, that's the ticket!

And 16 years (at least) of sanity in the White House, the return of peace and prosperity.

[Progressive420]

14. I voted Edwards

But I'm still holding out for Wes Clark!!!!!

[JI7]

15. the voters Kerry hopes to gain with those 3 are the same

people who lean conservative socially, but they tend to be blue collar type workers so they don't agree with republican fiscal policies which are hurting them and would like a change in that area.

edwards did the best among conservative leaning voters who "didn't" hate bush.this means those people are willing to vote democratic but may view kerry as too liberal and have questions about him. kerry does the best with the base of the democratic party(despite what you see on du). but he needs help outside of that base. you have to remember that while kerry beat edwards in most states, the type of voters edwards got were different from kerry voters, so it's not gauranteed those edwards primary voters would go for kerry in a general election.

gephardt and vilsack would be chosen for the same type voters, and i think they will do some internal polls to see how kerry get can the most votes based on vp. i think they will especially look to see if kerry can lead in missouri if he puts gephardt on the ticket. remember, florida with graham on the ticket didn't make much difference? which means there is less reason for bob graham to be picked for vp.

in the end, i want kerry to pick based on whoever would help get him elected the most. i don't care if people say gephardt is boring (i don't find him boring) or edwards doesn't have experience or vilsack is too unknown.what i want most is what helps the ticket win.

[JI7]

16. personally i think Kerry does appeal to them

to the more conservative leaning voters once they get to know him. but it's not iowa and new hampshire anymore. while he will continue holding town hall meetings and speaking to as many pe ople as he can. it's still a national campaign and there just isn't time to cover all places and people so there will be many people who will be influenced by the stereotype of him put out by big meida (such as michael dukakis, ted kennedy liberal).

[Darkamber]

19. Good points...

You make some very good points. Especially at the end about saying that Kerry should pick who will help him get elected.

There is one thing though, I'm sure if Gephardt would attack the same voters as Edwards or even Vilsack. Mainly I'm referring to Independents and even the younger Dean supporters. Although Gephardt is a moderate and has the 'common man' voice, he is a big time Washington insider. Those who want change and don't want the 'democratic machine' to continue as is, might be put off by a Kerry/Gephardt ticket.

By the way, Gephardt was my first choice as President before I heard Edwards on the radio. It wasn't until the debates that I was put off by Gephardt because of his debate performance.

However, I don't think that Vilsack or Edwards would suffer from the "Washington Insider' label.

[AntiCoup2K4]

17. Edwards is the only one on that list that's even remotely acceptable...

...But I still don't think 2 senators on a ticket is a wise move.

[rivertext]

49. should Kerry's VP choice be one favored by stirred up Democrat like us?

Seriously, those of us who really know what Bush has done, and has yet to do to our nation and our world are not going to vote for him because his VP choice was not the one that most excited us? All the candidates have negatives. What if Gephardt's most serious negative is that the stirred up DUer's (and I include myself here) don't particularily like him?

Look at his positives...

Can deliver Missouri and be influential in the Farm Belt and with labor.

Opposed NAFTA

Is Presidentially solid and could take on Cheney in a debate without having to be coached for it.

We ought to be prepared to enthusiatically support a Kerry/Gephardt ticket.

[shivaji]

88. You got it right...exactly...very pragmatic

[Debi]

18. So, I voted Vilsack

I mean, come on....I'm from Iowa...

[roguevalley]

22. None of them.

[Padraig18]

23. That's not a poll choice.

Sorry. :shrug:

[MoonRiver]

25. Agreed.

I will not vote in a fixed poll. There are many other candidates, and, I either don't particularly like, or don't know enough about these three to vote. Basically I don't care who Kerry picks as long as he wins. I love General Clark, but he would be marvelous as SoS as well as VP. I just think Kerry has a much better shot with Clark on the ticket.

[Dinger]

27. Ditto

Being in Kerry's administration in a capacity other than vp doesn't cut it.
Without Clark as VP, bu$h will win, and it won't be close; it'll be ugly.

[Padraig18]

30. I resent the HELL out of the use of the phrase 'fixed poll'!

That's who his campaign is vetting for VP, for fuck's sake! It's been on the news for the last 24 hours, and the poll is based on the god-damned NEWS STORY! Don't like it? Tough shit!

:grr:

[MoonRiver]

41. That wasn't a good use of words.

By fixed I just meant limited. Sorry. :(

[Jai4WKC08]

84. Oh well, if it's in the NEWS...

It must be true. /sarcasm

You have no idea whom Jim Johnson is vetting. You think HE tells everything to Nagourney, or whoever it was that reported this?

Besides, Clark is already vetted, so he should be an option.

Anyway, I refuse to vote too. Free country--deal with it.

[sampsonblk]

26. Gephardt Is the only one to pick - of the three

Vilsack = unknown.

Edwards = inexperienced, pro-Bush positions.

Gephardt = been there and done it. Got the union backing to prove it. With Gephardt, we are sure to win WV.

[JHBowden]

28. Not only WV,

but Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.

I personally loathe Gephardt, but that doesn't change political reality.

[AP]

31. Geps ties to labor didn't help him in IA.

Furthermore, Labor backed one of Granholm's pirmary opponents in 2002, and that didn't hurt her one bit.

If you're picking Gep because you think he's going to deliver something with labor, I think you're dreaming. He couldn't do it running in the primaries. It's been a while since labor actually turned an election (sadly). And it would be crazy to think labor wasn't doing it's all regardless of who's on the ticket.

[JHBowden]

33. Gephardt's reputation as pro-blue collar will help us.

I agree with you that the labor movement is only of marginal aid, if that.

Gephardt's working man image will not only go over well in the rust belt, his presence on the ticket makes Kerry look less patrician.

I believe Iowa was anomalous in that Gephardt and Dean destroyed each other with negative attacks at an inauspicious time.

[AP]

38. But it didnt' help him.

Notwithstanding Dean, Gep didn't get the labor vote all that excited. Labor seems pretty happy with Kerry. I'm not worried about the labor vote. As I said, they aren't making or breaking elections like they used to (although their turnout is pretty good), and, more importantly, they aren't in doubt.

I think it's more important to get some youth and charisma on the ticket, and to get someone who is going to win in 2012. That isn't Gephardt. Geps at the end of career in which the harder he worked, the less he got. He is not a winner.

[JHBowden]

43. We need EVs.

Gephardt didn't win in Iowa and therefore dropped out. I still believe he would help with blue collar dems in states like Pennsylvania and Ohio since Kerry has been very free-trade most of his political life.

I'm not arguing against that Edwards adds energy to the ticket. I'm merely stating that Gephardt brings in centrist voters and reduces the Nader factor in states critical for victory.

[AP]

44. Labor would have gone to Iowa to help him if they really cared.

Labor has been behind Kerry pretty firmly (notwithstanding the Dean endorsements). I've heard more people in my state tell me that their unions wanted Kerry from December on, and especiallin in February.

Also, if you want centrist voters, just look at Edwards vote tallies. The more moderate people consider themselves, the more they like Edwards, even though he talked about race, class, poverty, taxing people who make more than 200K, etc, then any other candidtate.

If you care about Nader voters, go with Edwards. They've known each other for a long time and Nader said over a year ago that he has a ton of respect for Edwards.

[JHBowden]

50. We're in good shape with either Gephardt or Edwards.

There's other qualified individuals too. I have no previous emotional or political commitments to Edwards or Gephardt, and don't like either of them. I'm merely asserting that given the way the poll numbers look in states like Pennsylvania and Ohio, Gephardt is one of the best options.

Again, I'm not asserting some machine will arise and carry us to victory if Gephardt is chosen. Gephardt adds appeal with socially conservative industrial blue collar folks pissed off about trade agreements and outsourcing, while Edwards seems to be stronger with blacks and rural whites.

[AP]

51. You just identified ANOTHER point which makes Edwards the

stronger candidate for VP. If you remeber, WI is where Edwards discovered that he was getting a lot of mileage on his trade votes. I don't think any Dem this year is more strongly associated with that issue.

As for blacks and rural whites, Kerry, in fact, did great with black voters. He can add nobody to the ticket who hasn't already been discussed who will do more for him on that front than he's already doing for himself.

Edwards went after those voters with a passion and still couldn't do better than Kerry.

Edwards strength is in talking a talk which is aimed at people who are working class and lower middle class while getting an incredible amount of support from people who consider themselves moderate.

I suspect that this is very frightening for the Republicans. I think that this is an opportunity that Democrats really can't turn their backs on.

[sampsonblk]

47. This primary season is an aberration

The anti-Bush wave was fanned by Dean, and ridden by Kerry due to his military qualifications - despite his lackluster campaign IMHO.

Labor may not make the whole difference in the general campaign but it matters in the states JHBowden mentioned. And those states are close enough for a small labor boost to turn the tide in our favor.

[AP]

52. But Kerry already has labor very interested and Gephardt couldn't

get them interested enough to help him do anything in IA, and he's just not that interesting.

[sampsonblk]

55. I could be wrong...

but I think Gephardt would have labor more than interested. I think they'd go to the mat for a Kerry-Gephardt ticket. But I could be wrong. I surely don't feel strong enough to put money on it.

[AP]

56. I think that labor would be upset Kerry didn't pick a better VP.

They'd care more about winning than about repaying favors to people who have done them favors.

Hell, some unions endorsed Dean on that logic.

[sampsonblk]

63. Yeah, Like Bradley in 2000

Sanme thing happened to him. He had been a 100% labor supporter, and the labor types went with Gore. Yep.

[sampsonblk]

46. Same here - I agree about Gephardt

Not a Gephardt fan either. But this is business, not personal.

[Moloch]

100. blah

Gephardt is too ambivalent, luckily so are his supporters. Aren't most of the unions behind Kerry any way?

[AP]

29. Isn't anyone bothered by Gep's attempt to undermine Clinton during the

budget negotiations in '94 (was it?).

Gep took a gamble that Clinton was going to be an unpopular one-term president, and did what he could to make that a reality so that he could run in '96, and he gambled wrong. That's fine, except that Clinton was trying to pass a budget that was really going to help the middle and working class and was going to do a world of good for America. Gep, in my opinion played politics instead, when he should have been working with Clinton to do what was right for Americans.

Also, not only is Edwards not pro-Bush (he voted against Bush more than any other Senator, and more than Gep AND Kucinich, according to CQ), but Gep had one overt moment in the Rose Garden recently where he appeared to be very pro-Bush. So, if that's your measure, you should be loving Edwards and you should have a problem with Gep.

[JHBowden]

34. Edwards brings risks.

The channeling of the unborn kid could be this election's Eagleton.

[Padraig18]

35. That story's been debunked so many times, I'll not bother again.

He did not 'channel' a child, unborn or otherwise; it was courtroom theatrics, as any 6th-grader who ever saw a trial would understand... :eyes:

[AP]

39. It's getting to the point that anyone who repeats it is revealing that

they don't really know what's going on.

[Padraig18]

40. The die-hard 'anti-Edwards' people are becoming annoying.

It's 99.99999% sour grapes, and incredibly petty, especially when they resort to parroting a fax-blast talking point from the RNC. :puke:

[AP]

42. It's probably in proportion to the perceived likelihood that

Edwards will be the VP selection.

[AP]

45. That definitely doesn't answer my question about Gephardt's behaviour

in '94.

What do you make of that?

[citizen snips]

32. John Edwards is by far the best choice.

:)

[Dinger]

62. Why Is He Better Than Clark?

Tell me. I'll listen and consider what you have to say.
IMO, Clark's resumesounds almost made up, but it's not.
It sunds too good to be true, and it IS true. But tell me anyway.
Apparently there's something you know that I don't.

[citizen snips]

65. I did not say Edwards is better then Clark.

But since you asked I have to say that Edwards will bring conservative swing voters in for Kerry.

[Dinger]

70. More swing voters than Clark?

Please tell me why.

[citizen snips]

72. Because of Edwards humble roots.

Edwards grew up poor and his story has sparked vast appeal. That factor will lead the conservative working class toward Kerry.

[Dinger]

73. Clark's Roots Are Very Humble

How about being orphaned at 4, and having your mom work as a secretary, and move in with your grandparents? Not exactly gold-plated, is it?
I don't "not-like" Edwards; I have a strong gut feeling, like never before, that Wesley Clark is the stake in the "heart" of the rebeelzepublican machine, the cryptonite they fear, the silver bullet they can't run from, well, you get the idea.

[AP]

78. Class isn't really a central element of Clark's identity, the way it is...

...with Edwards.

[Doosh]

108. Edwards did much better in the primaries

Clark was pretty dissapointing, but Edwards seemed to really connect with voters.

Edwards is far ahead of any other Dem in preference polls for VP, he's the only one that can reach across party lines and attract non voters or conservatives, plus he's young and the best stump speaker and campaigner.

[Doosh]

109. Edwards

[Padraig18]

69. I'll tell you.

Clark didn't excite the Independent and moderate Republican voters in any battleground state, while Edwards did. I like Clark, and agree that his resume is impressive as hell, but unless the VP brings or helps bring enough EV's to the ticket to get elected, resumes don't mean squat. That's why edwards is the better choice.

:shrug:

[Dinger]

71. If Clark Didn't Excite, Then Why Did

they go after him like they did? It seems, and this is just my perception, that Edwards and Kerry were almost "also-rans" till after Clark won Oklahoma. Then Clark was blacklisted from any mention in nthe media. They (the repig media) knew it would be pointless to try to attack Clark; how is the hell could they do that? Their choice was attack or ignore, and everybody knows what they chose. Remember the weekend before NH? The ONLY mention of Clark was a bus getting stopped in Oklahoma. I hate what the "liberqal" media did to him (and Dean too). Even tonight on Crossfire (with that old alcoholic traitor bastard Novak) they replayed "the scream," which wasn't a scream at all. Holy shit! Let that rest already. I wasn't too sure of Dean at first, but after what they did to him, I looked at him differently. The thought of a Clark/Dean or Dean/Clark ticket makes me sigh, but not quite like a Kerry/Clark ticket. If Clark gets in as Sec. of State, he still won't run in 2012, it'll be the veep. Clark against cheney in a debate, wow!! Cheney would have a heart attack and soil himself after one question. Kerry is really taking a chance if he goes with Edwards in my opinion. However, and this isn't being kiss-assy, but Edwards would be the ideal AG. Maybe Supreme Court justice???

[AP]

79. They went after him because they were afraid that he would excite.

Clark almost quit after winning OK, by the way, because he put such a huge effort into OK and won by so little. The Clark camp perceived OK as a failure.

I think if you want to know why Clark probably won't be VP, look at the NY primary:

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P04/NY-D.phtml

Obviously, he was out for a while already, but he only got .5% of the vote in NY -- 3,500 votes. Only LaRouche, who got .4%, 2,500, collected fewer votes. Gephardt got more votes than Clark.

Obviously, we're not looking for someone as VP who gets votes in NY. But NY is an interesting indicator. There are a lot of people who care about politics in NY, and every candidate who's serious about their political future should be able to find more than 3,500 people in that huge state who still would have been willing to go out and vote for them on March 2. Not only does Clark not really have an organized political base, but he's not generating the excitement.

Look at PA. Just last week, months after they dropped out, Dean and Edwards are still attracting 1/5 of the voters (getting 10% each). They are both politicians who have no national base (one has NEVER been in federal politics, and the other has only been in federal politics for less than a full senate term). They still have people who have grasped on to them and aren't letting go.

[Jai4WKC08]

82. Way off the mark, AP, as usual

Clark saw the writing on the wall after Iowa, but he had to give the South a shot. Besides, it wasn't only OK; he kicked Edwards' butt in AZ, NM, and ND, so there was some reason to believe it was worth hanging in for one more round. What he didn't anticipate was the post-Iowa media black-out would continue past NH and really from then on out. Heck, it's still going on. Even as I type this, I'm listening to a Fox discussion of Kerry's primary campaign and about how the media covered the candidateS (plural) with an internet base, but they only mentioned Dean by name.

In any case, I don't know how you define "the Clark camp"--some advisors thought he should call it quits after mini-Super Tuesday, others didn't. Either way, the decision was made, and it became the position of "the Clark camp" so it's sort of silly to talk about what "the Clark camp" wanted. You also have no clue as to what Clark or his "camp" considered a failure. Edwards spent FAR more time in OK than Clark, and was still coming off the Iowa bump. He should have done better than he did across the board.

As for NY and PA, those hardly provide a fair comparison. Clark threw his whole-hearted support behind Kerry immediately after withdrawing, and urged all of his supporters to do the same. Almost to a man (or woman) we have. Regardless of how we feel about Kerry personally. That's called leadership.

Dean and Edwards have continued to promote themselves and their own interests. I'll probably get flamed for that, but it's true. Only Dean and Edwards have actually won states, albeit their own, since dropping out.

There was a poll just out the other day, an "unscientific" internet poll to be sure, but controlled by password and not easy to freep.

Among self-identified Democrats (the majority of those polled):
41.25 percent U.S. Senator John Edwards, D - NC
31.11 percent General Wesley Clark

Among self-identified Republicans:
21.59 percent U.S. Senator John Edwards, D - NC
12.50 percent U.S. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, D - NY
10.22 percent U.S. Representative Nancy Pelosi, D - CA (8)
7.95 percent General Wesley Clark
(gee, wonder who they think they can beat)

Among self-identified Independents:
47.45 percent General Wesley Clark
18.64 percent U.S. Senator John Edwards, D - NC

http://www.politicsnationwide.com/voteresults.asp

Scientific exit polling in all the open primaries reflected pretty much the same thing.

[AP]

85. "off the mark" -- now there's a criticism I rarely hear...

...except from the odd Clark supporter.

Granted, it's a rumor, I've heard from real live people I believe that Clark wanted to withdraw after OK, but his advisors talked him into staying in. I also read it hear at DU. So that's a rumor I tend to believe -- Clark was disappointed by his narrow victory in OK and saw that he probably wasn't going to win.

Edwards spent time in OK, but didn't focus on it in the last two weeks, and was pleasantly surprised to have done so well. Clark spent time and money in OK and expected to do much better there.

As for Edwards winning only NC and SC (that's two, by the way), he also has lots of Electoral Votes, and he has placed 1st or 2nd in every primary since Super Tuesday (except for PA where he was about .4% behind Dean for 3rd place).

Notwithstanding your unscientific internet polls, I think the primaries are showing Edwards's strength.

Now, I don't think an unscientific internet poll is a good reason to pick a VP (by the way, are you aware that real live independents and moderates in the primaries -- people who voted -- really liked Edwards alot)?

And I also don't think coming in second in the primaries is a good reason to pick a VP.

But I do happen to think that all the reasons that Edwards came in second is a good reason, and I also think he's the kind of person who could and should be president after Kerry is done.



But, having said that, I don't think coming in second

[Jai4WKC08]

86. You are mistaken

About what went down in OK, and about how Edwards campaigned there.

I also think you're mistaken about whom independents prefer, based on ALL the polls, exit and otherwise.

But you are of course free to believe what you want, regardless of evidence that has been presented SO many times.

As you say, polls don't really matter and neither do primary results. I think Edwards would be a disaster on the ticket, precisely because of why I think Edwards did well in the primaries.

Ultimately it doesn't matter what I think, or you.

[AP]

87. It doesn't matter what JUST you or I think. It matters what a couple...

...million of us think.

And -- we can go round and round on this point -- I think it's pretty obvious from the primaries and from what logic tells us that a couple million of us are going to warm up to Edwards, and that Clark doesn't seem to really have the political skills to do much more than he did in the primaries.

But I do think Kerry could win with Clark. However, I'm pretty sure Clark couldn't win in 2012.

[AP]

89. Am I right again or wrong again?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/02/politics/campaign/02POIN.html

After choosing a representative national sample of more than 700 people, political scientists conducted what is called a deliberative poll. They created a group of well-informed voters by giving them home computers and exposing them to the candidates' commercials and policy positions. These voters, using microphones with the computers, discussed the candidates and the issues in small groups that met online once a week, starting in January on the day of the Iowa caucuses.

Over the next five weeks, as Mr. Kerry built up momentum among both real-life primary voters and the control group in the experiment, Senator John Edwards enjoyed the biggest surge in the well-informed test group, which was won over by his personal traits as well as by his policies, notably his protectionism on trade. Besides appealing to the Democrats in the test group, Mr. Edwards did better among the group's independents and Republicans, and he emerged as the strongest candidate against Mr. Bush.

[Jai4WKC08]

91. Not a relevant poll to this discussion

It only compared Kerry and Edwards in the final results. By the last two weeks of the study, they had narrowed it down to only the final four (Kerry, Edwards, Kucinich and Sharpton) and Clark wasn't even considered. So Edwards does better with independents and moderates than Kerry does. Duh.

I found a much more complete article about it at:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/btp/polls.html

You have your opinion about 2012, I have mine. First thing is we have to get Kerry elected in 2004, and Edwards just doesn't have what it takes to help him. My opinion, of course. I really don't see much point in discussing it.

[AP]

94. It's says independants and Republicans liked Edwards. You said they didn't

Or am I misremembering?

Was Clark not part of the study at the beginning?

Why would they continue to force people to study and talk about Clark after he withdrew?

Sounds like a good way to get participatns to drop out of the study.

[AP]

95. What makes you think Clark wasn't considered? They talk about him in the

Feb 9th discussion.

It doesn't look like they shut anyone out.

[AP]

96. Furthermore, it doesn't look like there was much room for Clark

to do better than either of them anyway, with Edwards in first or second place with over 70% of voters during the study, and with Kerry and Edwards being the favorite of, again, over 70%.

So, when the study says this:

Edwards' strength vis-à-vis Kerry appears to stem from a greater appeal to Republicans and Independents. Post-deliberation, our Republican participants rated Kerry's traits at about 43 (somewhat to the negative side of the neutral point of 50) but Edwards' at 57, a statistically significant difference. Our Independent participants rated Kerry at 61 but Edwards at 66, a close to statistically significant difference. (Our Democratic participants rated the two about the same.) Among both Republicans and independents, these ratings are significantly more positive among the participants than in the control group for Edwards but not Kerry, indicating that deliberation increased Edwards' advantage.

Furthermore, in a hypothetical November matchup against President Bush, Edwards fared significantly better than Kerry. While Kerry and Bush were tied at 47%, roughly a quarter of the participants favoring Bush in that matchup said they would be undecided or would prefer Edwards if the choice were instead between Bush and Edwards. In all, 48% said they would vote for Edwards and only 37% for Bush, if Edwards were the Democratic nominee. The contrast with the control group, which showed a similar but significantly weaker pattern, was highly significant statistically (26% of Bush supporters defected in the experimental group while only 12% defected in the control group). These results suggest a strong appeal of Edwards among Independents and Republicans.


I think it's hard to make the (unsuported) argument that Clark wasn't considered, and then make the logical leep that Clark would have done better if he were considered.

I think the inference is pretty clear.

[Jai4WKC08]

99. You can read, can't you?

First off, I said that Clark does better than Edwards with independents, NOT that independents don't like Edwards. And I based it on a totally different survey, as supported by open primary exit polling (primaries that Clark actually ran in, altho I didn't specify--I just don't see the point rehashing all that old information again).

I didn't say that THIS poll proved Clark would do better that Edwards, just that it doesn't prove that Edwards would do better than Clark, because Clark was NOT included in the analysis. He is NOT in the Feb 9th discussion either. He's only mentioned in the discussion on trade, week of Feb 2nd. Not even the discussion of international security of Jan 19 or Iraq on Jan 26 (which makes the whole thing suspect in my view).

I don't see how you can say that's unsupported. Read the fuckin' report. There's no Clark in it. Every statement about Edwards is in relation to Kerry.

Your statement about there "not being room" for Clark is absurd. I can't believe you really think Edwards' percentages wouldn't be different if there were more viable candidates considered.

There are a whole bunch of other problems with this study--the artifical limits on the information these people were presented, for example. And the subjects themselves had to be pretty disinclined to become "informed voters" if they had no opinions prior to Jan 19th. Which, fwiw, was AFTER the Iowa caucus. But my only point was that it's just not relevant to a comparison of Clark and Edwards.

Go back to telling us about the Nixon/Ford campaign.

[AP]

105. You can do math can't you?

It's hard to see in this study where Clark was doing better with independants.

He didn't have much room to get very much support at all, so it's hard to see how, within that sliver he was outperforming Edwards, who, the article says, was getting most of his strength from moderates and independants.

You based your opinion on an unscientific internet study (and I notice that all clark's strenght seems to come from the internet). Well this study (and the exit polling from the primaries) is pretty scientific.

It's your choice what you want to believe.

By the way, Clark IS in that study. One of the components of the study was that the participants were able to ask experts about the candidates. PBS published their questions. On February 9 they asked about Clark. Why would they ask about him one week before the first part of the study ended if he wasn't in the study?

You think he wasn't in the study because he didn't do well. It seems more like the logical conclusion is that you missed the one reference to him in the one component of the study, and you don't want to accept the fact that he only appears once in that componenty beause people just didn't seem that interested in him.

By the way, January 19 was the day OF the Iowa caucus. Unless they talked to these people before 10 pm, or so, they didn't know who was going to win the first day they talked to them. Nonetheless, I think that, and your other criticisms of the study are probably driven more by the fact that you didn't like the results.

Oh, and if Ford wasn't selected by Nixon to be his VP, then that's news to me. I know you want to make a big deal about this, but the argument wasn't that Ps pick VPs for running mates and then discard them after the election. It was that the role of the VP was to be the attack dog. I didn't think the VP went home after the election was over.

[Jai4WKC08]

106. No point in continuing with this

You don't read what I write, only respond to what you wish to think I wrote. Kind of like Edwards answering debate questions.

But I have to ask where you get your statement, "One of the components of the study was that the participants were able to ask experts about the candidates. PBS published their questions. On February 9 they asked about Clark. Why would they ask about him one week before the first part of the study ended if he wasn't in the study?"

Please give me a link. I've been thru that site a couple times now and can't find any mention of Clark as late as Feb 9th. Even the links to the questions asked by the respondents (at http://www.pbs.org/newshour/btp/poll_main.html) ends on Jan 16th, and Clark's not mentioned there either. If I've missed something relevant, I will apologize.

In any case, the candidate positions provided to the respondents by the pollsters on Feb 9 (at http://www.pbs.org/newshour/btp/odop/2004-question4.htm), the last week of the survey, definitely does NOT include Clark. Nor does any of the additional information mention him.

[AP]

112. Question number three, the third of the four they have linked...

...Clark is discussed. I matched that up with the 9th, since the study ended on the 16th, but I see now that there's no link for the 16th, and question 3 was from the 2nd.

But the point is, as late as the third week of the study people were ASKING about Clark, so he was clearly in the study.

Where'd you get the impression that he wasn't part of the study?

[Padraig18]

90. Actually, Edwards did better among Independents and mod Repubs.

He also is the CLEAR choice for VP among Democrats in the 'Southern Super Tuesday' states.

Florida
John Edwards 44%
Bob Graham 19%
Hillary Clinton 17%
Wesley Clark 7%
Dick Gephardt 4%
Bill Richardson 2%
Mary Landrieu 1%

Louisiana
John Edwards 31%
Hillary Clinton 23%
Mary Landrieu 22%
Dick Gephardt 8%
Wesley Clark 6%
Bob Graham 2%
Bill Richardson 2%

Mississippi
John Edwards 43%
Hillary Clinton 27%
Wesley Clark 9%
Dick Gephardt 8%
Bob Graham 2%
Mary Landrieu 2%
Bill Richardson 1%

Texas
John Edwards 43%
Hillary Clinton 27%
Wesley Clark 7%
Dick Gephardt 6%
Bill Richardson 4%
Bob Graham 3%
Mary Landrieu 2%

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

[AP]

97. Wow. Those numbers were better than I remembered.

[in_cog_ni_to]

36. None of the above.

Wes Clark.

[DFLforever]

37. If he picks Edwards,

it means that Kerry wants to win and acknowledges his candidacy lacks excitement and dynamism.

If he picks Gephardt, it means he doesn't care whether he loses or not, that he did a deal with Gep in Iowa and is sticking to it.

Edwards brings a lot of charm, interest, ability to connect with ordinary voters that Kerry lacks. He's a newcomer to DC - which is a plus compared to Gephardt's being an old, compromised pol.

IMO, Edwards will enhance the Dem party's ability to SELL their ticket to the American voter.

[Cuban_Liberal]

48. Well said!

100% in agreement. :thumbsup:

[rivertext]

53. If he picks Gephardt....

>>> " If he picks Gephardt, it means he doesn't care whether he loses or not"

even the RNC wouldn't have the balls to accuse Kerry of not caring whether he won or lost.

Eric Alterman columnist for the NATION and, most recently, co-author of THE BOOK ON BUSHargues that Gephardt is probably the best choice here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4836149/#040427

[democratreformed]

67. Well put

Please don't accuse our candidate of not caring if he wins or loses.

[JI7]

54. Kerry connects with voters

he got more votes in the first two states where it is mostly about connecting with voters than anyone else. maybe you don't like gephardt and i can see reasons for why edwards may be a better vp than gephardt but it's not true to say picking gephardt means he wants to lose. even howard dean got more votes than john edwards in pennsylvania so it's not as if edwards is easily the most appealing to most voters.

there are people who find clark appealing and don't see much in edwards. there are people who think bush has charisma and is a good man. everyone is never going to agree on one single person. people find different things appealing and most of it is opinion.

[Demoin04]

111. Junk, the first two states were won by a surprise turn in events

Kerry benefitted by Dean's lack of experience and successful tactics to promote how much of a presidential figure kerry looks, like an oak, when oak was a good thing. Now we are all scrambling because he doesn't seem to have the oomph to deliver the message we want. Dean made the most connection, but when the republican criticism got too hot everyone bailed. WE sank our own ship that time.

As for the VP choices, I can see doom in Gephardt, it's amazing the political analysts are saying he might be a good thing. He looks like he's at deaths door, and kerry and gephardt would exude old, tired politicians. Edwards however could lead into a potential 8-8 demo victory. If they were to be elected and did good, I could see the people in favor of a now more wise edwards to take on the next term...maybe.
Clark, yeah he'd give BC04 hell for sure, soft on defense ey? eyah.. but what further use could clark be than for national defense? Edwards could be the voice of a new america! something that's going to happen eventually.. maybe not this election but in 12 years it's going to be big.

[democratreformed]

66. I disagree

I like Gephardt and was sad when he dropped out. Just my opinion.

Whomever Kerry chooses, I will believe it is b/c he wants to win.

[ngGale]

57. Edwards...

only choice.

[Capn Sunshine]

61. None of the above

if thisis the best the party can offer, it's a sad commentary on the state of things. But we know that.

[AntiCoup2K4]

64. Comparing the votes here to the DLC thread...

...it would appear that the Republican infiltrators are split on which Iowa co-conspirator they want to reward.

[Darkamber]

68. As a Dean supporter...

I'm assuming you are a Dean Supporter, is there a VP choice that Kerry could make that would keep your interest? Is there a pick that would seriously drive you away?

I'm curious, because I think it is a huge mistake to ignore those who came into the Democratic party by Howard Dean. I'd like your input.

[hedgetrimmer]

74. Richardson from New Mexico...

John Kerry I beg you please take him and save our state from fiscal disaster...

[JohnLocke]

103. Richardson has said that he will serve out his term as governor.

[demigoddess]

80. I'd prefer Howard Dean

Really, just get over the tradition thing

[Cuban_Liberal]

81. He's not being vetted.

Why can't folks just answer the poll question asked, rather than kvetching about who they would prefer? :shrug:

[Cuban_Liberal]

83. "Please choose ... from among the 3 whose names were leaked. "

It's amazing how many contrary people we have here who seem constitutionally incapable of following simple poll instructions! :wtf:

[mzmolly]

92. EDWARDS!!!!

He's got a populist message, he's firey, he comes from humble beginnings, he's Southern, he's an EXCELLENT debator...

I only wish he were anti Iraq war but cha cain't win em all.

[AP]

98. I highly doubt Kerry would pick someone who wasn't on the same page on IW

The last thing they need is the Republicans driving a wedge between what should be a united front on the issue of the Iraq War.

Do you want to spend all fall explaining why the people on the ticket don't feel the same way about the war?

[mzmolly]

102. Happens all the time AP. VP's differ on issues with their running mate.

Explaining differences is nothing new. I think it's fine to say ... we disagreed on the war. But we agree on X Y Z ...

[AP]

104. I doubt it will happen on an issue as important as this one.

If you think it's important enough to pick X candidate because of his position on Iraq, because Iraq is so important, then X candidate better have a position on Iraq that's compatitible with Kerry's.

If not, the difference in opinion within the ticket will become the issue and not the ticket's strenght on the issue vs Bush/Cheney.

[Crunchy Frog]

93. Wes Clark!!!

:hi:

See this post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x515132

[kaitykaity]

101. None of the above.

Adding my vote for Wes Clark.

Don't think Bush/Cheney can overcome the double-whammy of
military leadership in a Kerry/Clark combo.

[left is right]

115. Clark

Besides there is a really practical reason to hope it isn't Edwards or Gephardt and it doesn't have anything to do with their qualifications to be VP. If either gets the nomination we lose a Democratic voice in congress. Can we afford to give the repukes any more advantage than they already have?

[juajen]

107. I'm not voting in any vp poll that doesn't have Wes Clark

N/T

[bigwillq]

110. I voted for Edwards

Right now, I really want it to be Edwards or Clark. Other than that, I really don't like some of the others mentioned in the past like Bayh and Richardson.

[Tweed]

113. Clark

[Darranar]

114. Edwards. n/t

[IndianaGreen]

116. We don't know who else is being vetted!

It depends on what the strategy is for the Fall. Gephardt could bring Missouri to the "D" column.

Neither Edwards nor Vilsak have the necessary background in foreign policy and national security that may come in handy if Kerry were to die in office.

No one outside of Iowas has ever heard of Vilsak!

Everyone knows who Gep is, even his enemies (I count myself among them)! However, Gep has long and very strong pro-labor record having voted against NAFTA.

Edwards is very likable, but he would make a better Attorney General than VP.

I didn't vote on this poll.

[Nicholas_J]

117. I like Edwards

Bur choosing Edwards would be strategically a bad move when it comes to trying to secure the electoral college. Edwards will not give Kerry strength in the Midwest, where Kerry needs to counter balance Bushs secure hold over the south, which Edwards will not be able to deliver. Kerry is holding his own, in fact catching up to Bush in Arkansas, so it is obvious he could win that state without Clark. Vilsack is popular within his own state, but is not a regional draw, which only Gephardt can do. No other candidate is strong enough to bring him strong midwestern democratic backing, or even more importand, stronger union backing. Gephardt is the one candidate who can tip the regional balance in Kerrys favor, in a big way.