Would Edwards's 2008 chances be better, had he not run as VP in 2004?

[mtnsnake]

...considering how surprisingly well he did toward getting the nomination for President last time?

Will future Presidential hopefuls who lose in the Primaries to another Democrat think twice about joining the ticket as VP candidate during that same year if asked?

I've often wondered that if John Edwards hadn't been the VP candidate on what turned out to be the losing ticket in 2004, if he would've been the front runner right now for the 2008 nomination. You think?

[blm]

1. I guess that depends on how well you think he handled his convention speech and

the debates, especially the one he had with Cheney. If you think he was convincing and dominating then, then that would be your answer.

[mtnsnake]

3. I don't think he was as impressive as VP candidate as he was in the primaries

Just speculating about where he might have stood now, had he not accepted the VP nod. I wonder if he would've been on top of the polls now or maybe not so good?

[thatsrightimirish]

2. If he didn't run for President at all he would be the front runner.

The numbers showed that he would have been re elected to the Senate in 04. The biggest problem for him is that I don't think the Democrats want to put someone that was on the 04 ticket. Because let's face it, that campaign was a disaster. I do like him though.

[blm]

5. The campaign wasn't a disaster - the DNC's nonefforts for 4 years prior was a disaster.

They never secured the election process or countered the RNC's vote suppression and vote stealing tactics that they learned about during the hearings on 2000.

The DNC knowingly kept the targetted state strategy intact even though it contributed to Gore's loss in 2000. The party infrastructure in too many states were completely collapsed by 2002 and 2004 because of that strategy of neglect.

[wisteria]

12. What election were you involved in from my angle it was a decent run.n/t

[onehandle]

4. I believe it helped him.

I also believe he's well positioned to be the nominee in 2008.

This is only the current impression I have and has nothing to do with who I have supported in the past or will support in 2008.

Hillary, Al, John, Wesley, The other John, a yellow dog. Just point me towards the D.

[stevebreeze]

6. don't blame Edwards for Kerry's bad choices

It is after all the presidential candidate who is in charge of the campaign. That Kerry made poor use of Edwards ability is Kerry's fault. I suspect the charisma challenged Kerry did not want to be compared to Edwards often.

With Feingold out I think Edwards is the best progressive choice in 08.

[wisteria]

13. Now wait, Edwards added NOTHING TO THE TICKET-he couldn't

even bring us his home state. Edwards had impute and he expressed his POV,if he wanted changes in his presentation it would of been fine. However, he chose to continue running on the same tired speech. I went to see him four times and it was always the same act-word for word. I could honestly say, that perhaps if Kerry had decided to go with someone else, we may have done better and perhaps even won.

[MethuenProgressive]

15. Kerry's bad choice was picking Edwards over Clark

Every generation has a Dukakis/Edwards.

[mtnsnake]

18. Most "experts" said Edwards was picked to be the "charisma" part of the ticket

As much as Clark has been my favorite of the crop, in 2004 he would've been military "overkill" on a ticket where the Kerry was running as a military candidate.

Edwards complimented Kerry more than Clark did.

[benny05]

27. And if trotted out more in urban areas as much as rural

Could have been a little different race. Alas...that was 2004. 2008 brings promise to Edwards, but it will be a very competitive race.

[nickshepDEM]

7. Nope, it upped his name recognition. Personally, I do not know a

single person in real life who does not like John Edwards. Not a single person, honest. From the Republican African American woman I worked with at the local library to the Conservative Democrat and Bob Ehrlich supporter across the street. Everyone just seems to like the guy.

[venable]

8. good question

positive is that people can imagine him on the national level without a problem

negative is that he was sent packing to the shadows for some reason, and never quite hit the great stride when he spoke about a vision...ie in the primary season he spoke about he country, not about himself. In the election he spoke, understandably, about the man at the top of the ticket.

He is best when he is simply the messenger for a broad vision.

good question.

[mtnsnake]

19. "He is best when he is simply the messenger for a broad vision"

I'd have to agree with you on that.

negative is that he was sent packing to the shadows for some reason, and never quite hit the great stride when he spoke about a vision...ie in the primary season he spoke about he country, not about himself. In the election he spoke, understandably, about the man at the top of the ticket.

Good analysis!

[Clarkie1]

9. His chances would be worse. He would just be another senator, assuming he was in the senate. nt

[benny05]

20. You aren't biased, are you?

:-)

[Clarkie1]

23. I made my decision after careful deliberation in 04', let's put it that way. nt

[MasonJar]

10. I think that he has a lot of name recognition now that he would not

have had; I do not think dems and independents will hold the VP candidate responsible for the ticket losing. However, I was surprised at how he was mauled by Cheney. Kerry did significantly better against Bush. but then who wouldn't. No derogation of Kerry intended, only of the lying bastard he was debating. Has anyone seen that bump in the back of his suit since the debates? Of course not. Just another typical abuse of the rules of debate (or any rules available by the prevaricator-in-chief.

[wisteria]

11. I don't think it makes any difference. n/t

[MethuenProgressive]

14. Sure, because less people would know who he is.

But now, because we saw what an impotent mumbler he was, he has no chance at all.

[Zynx]

16. He would have lost his Senate seat and would be politically dead.

Not that he isn't already, but at least he would know it.

[Awsi Dooger]

24. Accepting VP had nothing to do with his senate seat

He already had decided not to run to re-election. If he had run, Edwards would have won. Obviously it would have been close but an incumbent has huge advantage and Edwards' favorable numbers in the North Carolina exit poll were fine, 51/46.

If he had sought the seat and campaigned for it instead of the presidency those statewide numbers would have been ever higher. Besides, it's not like he would have faced an invinciple candidate in Burr. Give me a break. Burr defeated Bowles by significantly lesser margin than Dole did in '02. Normally a second timer loses more decisively. If Burr could manage only 52% against a dud like Bowles how can anyone assert he would have defeated John Edwards? It's conventional wisdom from the anti-Edwards crew, coated in crap.

[davidwparker]

17. No. He was #2 on the ticket and fullfilled his role of supporting Kerry.

[usregimechange]

21. Few would know who he was if not for 04.

[liberalpragmatist]

22. Maybe, but it's hard to tell

I don't think he's significantly hurt his chances. If anything, he might be a better candidate out of it, having campaigned both for president and in the national campaign for vice president.

[Joe Bacon]

25. He should have stayed in the Senate and held on to his seat

If he did we would have had 52 and we could tell LIEberman to kiss off.

[benny05]

26. That's the best reason I've heard so far

about why JRE should have stayed in the Senate. :-)

However, Edwards chose to throw all of his eggs in the basket, but it was not to be that K/E ticket to win (unless one could prove what happened in Ohio).

I like his chances for 2008.