If John Kerry chooses Dick Gephardt for VP...

[WI_DEM]

would you be more likely or less likely to vote for the ticket or would it not make any difference at all?

[Darkamber]

1. No different, but then I'ld vote for Kerry/Sponge Bob

When the choice is Bush, I'll take Kerry any day.

[onehandle]

2. ABB! nt

[AntiCoup2K4]

3. It would be a confirmation that a deal was made in Iowa...

...and Kerry would lose my vote.

[beyurslf]

4. IF JFK chooses.... and Dem... it will not effect how much I want to vote

for him. If he chooses a Repub I will vote for him but not like that he didn't choose a Dem.

[demnan]

5. I will vote for Kerry

as long as he has a pro-choice VP candidate on his ticket.

[mrgorth]

6. I'd be really, really pissed but I'd still do it.

[Claire Beth]

7. I'm voting for Kerry regardless of his running mate. n/t

[sangh0]

8. This poll shows what even the "Sheeple" know

VP picks don't count for much with most people. DUer's preoccupation with the VP pick is emblematic of how DU does not "get it"

[Skarbrowe]

10. Kerry regardless

I'll be PO'd completely if Kerry picks Gephart. Why? Because I think times are so furked now that we can't base anything on what's happened before. Democrats are going to vote for Kerry regardless of who he picks for VP, but Kerry CAN pick someone who can excite the ticket a bit and that is not Gephart. Plus, positioning for 2012 has to be considered. People have shown they don't want Gephart for President several times now.

I still think the Republicans can steal this election. I want all the help possible on the Democratic ticket to get people who may have never voted before to the polls. To me, the VP pick is VERY important this time around.

Skarbrowe

[sangh0]

12. I happen to agree with you

IMO one of the most important factors for Kerry to consider is the ecitement factor. That's why I lean towards Edwards as a VP. During the primaries, he was an inspirational speaker.

However, in the end I don't think it's a critical decision.

[kymar57]

19. My feelings also.Skarbowe n/t

[mgarretson]

9. I'd still vote for him...

if I didn't fall asleep on the way to the ballot box. Gep's old news... there are plenty of politically young and energetic folks out there... don't make us snooze our way to the polls.

[Nicholas_J]

11. VP's who are not chosen because they are energetic

Or because they can bring excitiement to the ticket.

I cannot think of ONE vice president in the last 60 years who was an exciting, magnetic person.

Lets see, Dick Cheney, Al Gore, Dan Quayle,George HW Bush, Walter Mondale, Gerald Ford, Spiro Agnew, Hubert Humphrey, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon.

Now anyone who has chosen people who had more energetic personalities, and were publically known in their own right, like Geraldine Ferraro, resulted in tickets that lost.

VP's are best chosen for strategic reasons, and not because they are young and handsome, or because they have magnetic personalities.

You want a VP who will not turn attention from the presidential candidate. You essentially want an invisible man who is good at raisiing money, and who is connected to lots of organizations that traditionally support the democratic base. That IS Dick Gephardt.

[mgarretson]

15. thanks for the analysis Nicholas_J

I understand your logic and I think it makes sense... I just don't see Gep as being a worthwhile addition to the ticket in comparison to other Dem politicians out there.

Here's a thought though, who else would meet your standards for the VP slot besides Gephardt? I'm not against your argument, just your conclusion.

[Nicholas_J]

24. Someone with the magnetism and wit

of Millard Filmore, or Martin Van Buren.

I think, as the majority of the Democratic Leadership do, that Gephardt is probably the safest choice, who can bring a lot of organizational support to Kerry. When the Teamsters met with Kerry recently, they made it clear in no uncertain terms that in order for Kerry to get their fullest supprt, they wanted Gephardt to be the running mate. They may endorse Kerry without Gephardt, but without him, Kerry will not get the kind of on the ground support from the Teamster membership, canvassing for Kerry, that they will only get if Gephardt is the running mate.

Edwards, isw too much of a personality in his own right, and he would draw too much attention from Kerry to himself, which is something that you dont want in a VP. Clark, a little less so.

What is not desireable is two presidential grade candidates running on one ticket. The VP has be be a background figure during the campaign, and not a figure who will draw too much media attention in his own right. Also, there must be absolutely nothing unexpected in the VP candidates past record that can come out and be used by the republicans to attack the ticket. I cant remember who it was, but sometime in the last 30 years a potential running mate was found to have had to see a psychiatrist, and was placed on anti-depressants, and this alone was enough to kill him being considered for the nomination. A ticket with two people who have admitted to smoking dope might just be enough to cause some drop in support. I can see the repuke commerials now, Kerry and Edwards made up to look like Cheech and Chong. There are still enoug people around who would consider this a negative, evne with Bush's cocaine and alcohol abuse.
Jesus absolved him of all that. Kerry and Edwards dont quite have the supposed sins of their wild youths washed away fromt them.

The largest contingency of the Democratic leadership is pulling for Gephardt, and he is not all that bad a choice. He has a very liberal, populist record, he has a very open political past, where every bit of mud that Republicans can look for has been already used and slung at Gephardt. It would be far more difficult to smear Gephardt that the other candidates.

Again, I personally am not rooting for Gephardt, but all of the attacks on him based on recent things he has done are similar to the attacks on Kerry by supporters of other candidates. Gepahrdt is a very solid Democrat, has an impecable record as a liberal democrat, supporting virtually every liberal cause that the Democratic Party has supported over his career. He has more backing from organized labor than any other candidate being vetted for the nomination for running mate. And he is the perfect foill for Cheney, a very competant attack dog, who is largel responsible for taking Dean out, opening the way for Kerry to overtake that candidate. t was gephardt hounding and bringing to light Deans record as Governor which drew a great deal of media attention onto Dean, and he can do the same to Bush, better than either Edwards or Clark can. Remember, as Democratic leader, he had a lot of talks with Bush discussing the issues that led to Iraq, that neither Clark or Edwards can draw on.

His years as a Washinton insider provide even more contact to bring inside info to the campaign. Again, neither Clark or Edswards can do this. Which is why, again, the party insiders are pushing for Gephardt.

[saracat]

27. How ridiculous!

The leaders ARE NOT pulling for Gep. I just attended the DLC Conversation with America and the feeling was definitely NOT Gep. Where do you get your info. I agree about the union .That is a fact.But the Union is not comprised of Party Leaders.The DLC would like Richardson ,but he flunked the vetting.They really lean toward Vilsak, who BTW has a great personality and a wonderful sob story of growing up in an orphanage.
I agree that ordinarily you wouldn't want the VP to overshadow the Candidate but in this case with Kerry having been smeared as "dull'you need to liven up the ticket.I personally feel Edwards would work and if not him then Clark. They both offer different brands of excitement that allegedly Kerry lacks.
VP is different than the days of the veeps you mention.Al Gore was a true partner to Clinton and got a lot of attention as did his wife Tipper.He was the most well known VP until Cheney.And Cheney won the election for Bush ambivalent voters liked Cheney better than Bush. Remember the VP Debates were much more highly rated in 1999 than the Presidential Debates.We need a candidate that can win this for Kerry.

[Nicholas_J]

29. THe majority of the democratic leadership

ARE recommending Gephardt, NOT vilsack. I get my information directly from my own states party anda number of its leadership...more than half are pulling for Gephardt. The want a long time political figure.

Literally all articles discussing the topic indicate strongly that the party leadership is looking for a safe choice:

The more chaotic the situation gets in Iraq and the more Bush sinks in the polls, the more the situation calls for a safe, vetted, vanilla pol like Dick Gephardt. Clark would reinforce Kerry's national security credentials, but as an amateur politician prone to saying embarrassing things, he is also a gamble.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32740-2004May17.html

Next one:

There were earlier indicators that Kerry is not taken with Edwards. The final weeks in the primary season became particularly contentious between the competitors. Kerry was overheard telling an aide in February: "Edwards says he's the only one who can win states in the South. He can't win his own state." Kerry was referring to surveys that showed Bush leading Edwards in North Carolina...

Gephardt, too, has already been examined closely by the media, as well as his opponents, having been in public life for 30 years, and running for president, in 1988 and this year. Kerry is known to be particularly comfortable with the Missouri congressman, considered a safe choice who potentially brings his home state, a notorious swing state that went Republican in 2000. A disciplined campaigner, Gephardt, 63, could also help the ticket in other midwestern and industrial states because of his middle-class background and strong union support...

"One plus for Kerry is that he wouldn't have to watch his back for eight years," one party strategist said. Another added, "Kerry desperately needs someone with a blue-collar, scruffier background."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59829-2004May1.html


Perhaps the most hotly debated topic in Democratic circles is the Kerry- Edwards relationship, and whether Kerry could overcome his concerns as to whether Edwards is ready to be president. Three sources who have spoken to Kerry in the past few months said that the presumptive nominee has been blunt about his views on Edwards, a first-term senator and former trial lawyer who ran a surprisingly strong primary campaign...

Gephardt, too, has already been examined closely by the media, as well as by his opponents, having been in public life for 30 years. He ran for president in 1988 and this year. Kerry is known to be particularly comfortable with the Missouri congressman, considered a safe choice who potentially brings his home state, a notorious swing state that went Republican in 2000 but voted for Bill Clinton in 1996 and 1992. A disciplined campaigner, Gephardt, 63, could also help the ticket in other Midwestern and industrial states because of his middle-class background and strong union support.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/05/02/MNGCB6EFOP1.DTL

Overall, there are a number of serious problems between Kerry and Edwards that do not look to be problems that can be resolved. Edwards will be Kerry;s last choice. The first will be Gephardt, the next Clark, and finally Edwards only if the others will not accept the position.

And there are litterally dozens of articles that are very cleartly indicating that there is a very strong likelihood that whoever is the running mate, the least likely to get the position will be Edwards.

Not that I dislike Edwards, but Kerry is simply not going to select someone based on what public opinion is. He is going to go with a safe choice, and not an exciting one. Gephardt has been thoroughly vetted during two presidential runs. Tgis is going to be a close election, and NOTHING can be left to chance. Safety, and longtime political connection will make winning far more possible than s winning smile and boyish charm, and political slogans which lack depth. There is one thing that was clear frmo Edwards presidential bud. That is that he is not very knowledgeable about national security or foreign relations. His responses to questions about these situations always lacked depth, and he could not survive a debate with Cheney. He simply does not know enough, due to his short time in service as Senator. He is a very intelligent, and good senator, but he does not have what it takes to pull his running mate through what is going to be a very tough season. Gephardt does.

[Rationality]

13. I would think there are better VP choices out there, but my vote won't

change as long as he doesn't put up some nutcase like Pat Buchanan or Lyndon LaRouche. If he ends up with a Bill Richardson or an Evan Bayh, however, it will be an unplesant experience casting that vote.

[Skarbrowe]

16. Yeah, but..

In past elections I would agree with you Nicholas. And I did say somewhere that this was more of a gut reaction than a rational one. I know that a Presidential candidate does not want a VP that is going to take the spotlight off him ( maybe someday I can say him/her ), but THIS election I truly feel that Kerry needs a boost. I don't want to see some bland, keep 'em hidden in the basement VP pick. I like Richardson, but the guy swears he won't take the job. Who knows. There is just something that tells me that Kerry can lock this thing up with the right VP choice. To be honest, I don't know why I'm so convinced of this. I know what VP's have always been used for. Maybe Cheney changed all that. :)

I'm not %100 sold on Edwards. I just don't want Kerry to pick someone who is not well known by at least political junkies like us ;) much less the rest of the country, then have to spend time introducing this guy, ( because ya know it's going to be a guy ) to the people who haven't been paying much attention.

Again, normally I wouldn't care much about who the VP is, or think it that important for Kerry. But, I want Bush OUT. I just hope that Kerry isn't too much of an egoist and does end up picking someone who he knows will fade well into the background when they win in November. Cause we gotta win it first.

Skarbrowe

[Rationality]

22. Uh... you replied to the wrong guy. I'm not Nicholas ((n/t))

[Skarbrowe]

28. Sorry!

I'm still new to this board and I just hit reply after the last post, not the person's post I was replying to. I hope this goes under your post.

Skarbrowe

14. I chose "Undecided" because

"This Will Make Me Less Enthusistic About Voting For Kerry" was not an option.

I'll still vote, but it will make a difference. If Kerry pick Gep, I'll lose a great measure of respect for Kerry.

It will tend to confirm some of my ill feelings about the primaries. Oh yeah, and screw Nader and his helpful hints on winning the Presidency.

[Padraig18]

17. As long as he picks a Democrat, in for a penny, in for a pound!

:)

[AP]

18. I'll vote, but I think a lot of moderates might look at that ticket and

think of yesterday instead of tomorrow and won't vote for it (many of them will probably just stay at home).

[Crowdance]

20. I'd stay home.

Gep's not pro-choice.

[cyclezealot]

21. I an a Kucinich supporter.

as to Gephardt..Disagree with Gephardt over the war and Healthcare..But after that trade is right up there as a critical issue..Had I had to vote for anyone but Kucinich- maybe I would have chosen Gephardt, again over trade issues.
So Gephardt, might not have the negative impact on me, as say a Bayh....Probably, Gephardt would sway me positively. Labor issues, he is excellant.
Kerry chooses Bayh. I have a real problem.

[IndianaGreen]

23. I would rather Kerry picked Evan Bayh

that way we would be rid of that neolib/PPI moron and our Democratic Governor can appoint a suitable replacement.

[ngGale]

25. I'm ABB and voted my conscience in the poll...

if it were not for the Supreme Court, with Gep I'd go third party.
I honestly think with Gep for Vice, Kerry will lose if it's a close race.

[JI7]

26. why don't indiana voters just vote bayh out ?

[IndianaGreen]

30. Because the GOP never mounts a credible challenge to Bayh

This year Indiana Republicans nominated mild-mannered and non-fundie African-American Butler professor Marvin Scott.

Unfortunately for Professor Scott, Bayh is more popular among the GOP non-fundie conservatives than he is among progressives.

Indiana is a typical 2-party duopoly. It is also a state in which the old style political machines are still alive. One does not mount a challenge to an incumbent because in order to have a chance at the nomination one has to be slated by the party pros. Seldom has a challenger ever succeeded in beating the slated candidate in either the Republican or Democratic primaries. Prior to the 2004 GOP primary, when long time State Senator Larry Borst lost by less than 40 votes to a challenger, I believe the last time this happened was in 2000 when Suellen Reed defeated the slated candidate for Superintendent of Public Instruction.

[Scoopie]

31. It will prove the Dems are the wusses that

they are alleged to be.
STOP IT! Be strong!
Get someone who can kick Cheney's ass up and down.

Personally, vanilla is nice, but not as good as when it has adornment.

[incapsulated]

32. Please

Who cares, I'm voting for good over evil. Kerry and whoever.

Clark would reinforce Kerry's national security credentials, but as an amateur politician prone to saying embarrassing things, he is also a gamble.

If I hear this bullshit one more time I'm gonna do something illegal.

Clark is Kerry's surrogate in the media already. He is trusted with that role and does it extremely well, thank you very fucking much.

[Jai4WKC08]

35. Well said incap!!

May I quote you? :toast:

Funny how "some people" are so worried that Clark will say the wrong thing. Funny how Kerry isn't one of 'em.

[beyurslf]

33. Kerry/Porky Pig.... Kerry/Marilyn Manson.... Kerry/Nader.... Kerry/Anyone

It is all the same. The first name isn't Bush.

[drumwolf]

34. Considering the alternative....

I will vote for Kerry regardless of who his running mate is, whether it's Edwards, Gephardt, McCain, Nader, Caligula, Michael Jackson, or the lint under my left toenail.

However, if he picks Gephardt, I'll be quite disappointed.

[davidinalameda]

36. he'd do better as Secretary of Labor

but I can live with him as VP