2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

Those who rule out Kerry/Edwards are ignoring the fact that Kerry needs to appeal to Southern voters. That's often the rationale for choosing a VP candidate: balancing the ticket geographically.

I'm not saying it's going to happen, but it's a compelling reason for Kerry to choose Edwards. A good move for Edwards, too. He'll be a more seasoned candidate, should they win or lose, when he decides to run again in the future.

They don't need to appeal to Southern voters. Kerry would be better off with a Latino VP. The swing states have large Latino populations. The South is lost this time around. In elections past, Edwards would have be a much bigger asset.

I really like the idea of a non-Hilary woman VP. That could work too. Feinstein looks too much like Barbara Bush. I like Pelosi.

A Latino VP candidate would be fine, but who? Richardson might fit the bill, I guess. But I don't think the Dems should rule out the entire South just yet. Edwards might at least give them a shot in the Carolinas...

I considered that D'art but I don't think Kerry's plan really relies on the Southern voter. Kerry could win the general election if he captures the East coast from Boston to DC, the West coast and the Great Lakes Region.

That cedes the Mountian states and the south but results in a comfortable margin of EC votes.

I think Kerry's strategy is to pull all the states Gore pulled in the 2000 EC voting and add NH, OH, IN, NV and the Dakotas. That shift would give him a 40 vote margin in the EC.

Sounds good to me, fishin'. Given such a strategy, who would be a good pick for VP?

This is the only Democratic Candidate I agreed with: Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri

I think all Edwards needs to do is give his support to Kerry if he isn't the front runner. That might have some impact on the southern vote.

If I were Kerry I'd be talking to Diane Feinstein. A West Coast liberal who's hawkish on the war on terrorism, is well known nationally, has experience on Senate defense committes, is big on environmental issues, etc..

She's a west coast version of Al Gore with a bigger mouth and more personality. Her biggest draw-back would be her rabid support of every gun control measure that's ever come along but I think in the #2 slot that's tempered by Kerry's record there.

We've seen momentum come and go how many times in this campaign?

Kerry won't select a sitting Senator (the margin for Democrats to continue to stay extremist judges and other radical-right legislation is too thin) and he will select a Southerner.

Edwards, Clark, Bob Graham and Bill Richardson will all be on the short list. Rep. Harold Ford of Tennessee, a supporter from the beginning, will also be on that list.

I wouldn't mind being wrong about this prediction: a woman will be on the GOP ticket before she will the Dems.

Bush/Rice '04?

A distinct possibility, Brand, from what I've been reading.

I'm don't really see how that plays in here. If Feinstein were to run with Kerry they'd either win (in which case THEY'D be submitting the names of judges for consideration..) or they'd loose and she'd go right back to her Senate job...

I do like Ford though. I don't see him getting the nod but...

Good evening. Am I correct that this weekend we have MI and WA? On Tuesday is (perhaps among others) my state of VA. I'm really excited about my state participating in this process for the first time. But I'm going to withhold commenting until Sunday.
The notion of "any Democrat-regardless of ideology-as long as he can get rid of Bush" is a bit troubling but it seems to me to be a recurring theme.
I don't think that the Dems can write off the South and expect to win. Edwards on the ticket would help. He's a young man w/o much national or international experience. He would do well to build a resume.
I could certainly see Richardson as the first Hispanic Secretary of State. I don't know how old he is, but he needs a stepping stone.

Finally, on NPR's All Things Considered this evening was an interview with Ralph Nader. He got 3% of the vote in 2000 and, in the view of some, cost Gore the presidency. Will he run again in 2004? I can't summarize that interview. Visit npr.org for the whole thing. -rjb-

Again, Edward's isn't young, he's 50. I like to think that's young since I'm in my early 40's though.

Nader also said he resented being asked by the left not to run, he viewed it as sensorship.

Nader will do what he'll do. I think he enjoys making the Dems squirm. In his weird and egotistical way, he believes he's doing the right thing. Funnily enough, I almost provoked a fight the other night among friends and acquaintances who split in 2000 between Gore and Nader.

The man is still quite the polarizing figure...

He also said he would run as an independent, not Green.

Not sure how it works in CA, so Californians in the know, weigh in please...

Some states don't allow a senator to run for President, or VP, and their Senate seat at the same time (is Feinstein up this cycle?). In Texas we do allow that. (LBJ was Senate Majority Leader in 1960 and ran for the Senate and VP both; Lloyd Bentsen also ran for VP with Dukakis and re-election to the Senate in 1988.)

When a Senate seat must be filled due to vacancy, the governor of the state typically appoints someone (of his party) to fill the unexpired portion of the term, or to serve until a special election. I know that is the case here; most recently it occurred in Alaska, when Frank Murkowski was elected Governor and appointed his daughter Senator.

The Governor of CA is a Republican.

I just don't see an active Dem Senator in the mix for Kerry's VP. Or a female, with the possible exception of Carol Moseley-Braun.

From the Latino point of view (not counting Florida, which is another political world), Richardson is a huge asset, Feinstein is a huge liability.

I've been a supporter of Feinstein in California, but I'm not thrilled about the idea of her running for national office.