VP-Help or Hurt?

[mndemocrat_29]

A vital part of the 2004 election, a decision that could decide who holds the White House in 2005 will be the decision about who will run on the bottom half of the ticket. Do you think that these candidates would've fared better or worse had they selected someone else for their ticket?

Gore/Lieberman
Clinton/Gore
Dukakis/Bentsen
Mondale/Ferraro
Carter/Mondale
McGovern/Shriver
Johnson/Humphrey
Kennedy/Johnson

[cherryperry]

1. I agree with you!

If Kerry is the nominee, he needs someone from the South as VP. Will it be Graham?

[mndemocrat_29]

2. Graham or Clark

Either would be a terrific other end of the ticket. I'd side with Graham, simply because he'd have his rural appeal and geography. However, Clark shouldn't be counted out for one reason: the debate. Can you imagine Wesley Clark (a general, articulate, good-looking, and charismatic) against draft-dodging, mumbling, gruff Dick Cheney.

[VoteClark]

3. Some hurt and some helped

Gore/Lieberman Hurt, he should choose Graham or Bayh
Clinton/Gore Helped, strong
Dukakis/Bentsen Helped Strong
Mondale/Ferraro Hurt, to earily for a women :(
Carter/Mondale Hurt, should have used another southerner
McGovern/Shriver Hurt, his switch from Eagalton hurt badly
Johnson/Humphrey Helped, Humphrey was popular
Kennedy/Johnson Kennedy would have lost without Johnson to Nixon

[liberalpragmatist]

4. My Reply...

1) Gore-Lieberman was solid and did help Gore. I know people here don't like Lieberman, and he's not my candidate this yr, but I do think he helped in '00 -- the general public, if not the Dem. activists, liked what they saw and the media coverage of him was very good. The whole running mate selection and runup to the convention were very good to gore, he suddenly pulled into a large lead. (Sighs)

2) Clinton-Gore was solid -- didn't really help or hurt Clinton, but did keep the ticket on message, setting a new precedent for running mates -- not ideological balance, but ideological compatibility.

3) Dukakis-Bentsen was good -- it helped Dukakis win some votes he wouldn't have. Bentsen was very strong and had much higher ratings than Quayle.

4) Mondale-Ferraro didn't help. Initially it did, but once the initial euphoria wore away it became clear that there was nothing in her that qualified her to be vice-president or president for that matter: she was a 3-term not-too-prominent congresswoman. Of course, Reagan was amazingly popular that yr anyway, so Mondale would probably have lost anyway.

5) Carter-Mondale didn't hurt

6) McGovern-Shriver was a disaster. McGovern was a hugely inept candidate as it was; Edmund Muskie would have been vastly better. But the whole running mate fiasco w/ first nominating Thomas Eagleton proved a disaster, and the ticket never made any headway. Indeed, before the running-mate debacle it was only 10 pts behind nixon -- the debacle caused there not to be a post-convention bounce and brought his ratings down dramatically.

7) Humphrey-Muskie was good. The Democrats that year were disastrous, though in the end they did nearly win after a last-minute surge in support as many Democrats came home. Muskie was said to be one of the bright spots of the campaign and proved a good running mate. Both of these men would've made excellent Presidents.

8) Johnson-Humphrey didn't hurt or help. It didn't matter when the Republicans nominated Goldwater.

9) Kennedy-Johnson helped a lot more than most tickets. Johnson gave a lot of geographic support, bringing Texas along w/ him, which was very close that yr, and probably shoring up support in other parts of the South as well. JFK could have won w/out him, but it would've been much harder.

[Josh]

5. I agree... ALSO -

Clinton/Gore in '92 DID help because it was the first all-baby boomer Presidential ticket, which excited a lot of people.

And Gore was languishing in the polls until he made the "bold" (as the media called it) decision to pick Lieberman. I liked Lieberman a lot then but I like him not much at all now, but it doesn't change the fact that Lieberman's selection as Gore's running mate gave Gore's campaign the fresh breath of air that it had needed. And yes, the media coverage of Lieberman was excellent.

[mndemocrat_29]

6. My thoughts

Gore/Lieberman-I think that Lieberman did in fact help this ticket. He should've showed some more faith in the ticket by not running for the Senate simultaneously. However, I maintain (as I did then) that Bob Graham was the absolute best candidate we could've possibly run here.

Clinton/Gore-Gore was a wonderful addition. Gore was intelligent (which helped against Quayle) and was of the highest moral code (which helped against the Gennifer Flowers allegations)

Dukakis/Bentsen-Dukakis would've lost by twice as much had it not been for Lloyd Bentsen. Bentsen should've been at the top of this ticket. If he had we could've won. However, that would've deprived us of one of politics most immortal lines: "You are no Jack Kennedy."

Mondale/Ferraro-Ferraro gained instant fame and did give the ticket a much needed boost. However, she wasn't a great campaigner and didn't have the political resume to be president. Someone like Ernest Hollings would've been a better choice.

Carter/Mondale-Though being a Minnesotan I may be biased here, I think that Mondale helped this ticket. However, in rehashing elections history, I think that Gov. Wendell Anderson screwed up Mondale's appointment that year, ruining what could've otherwise been a long political career.

McGovern/Shriver-Terrible choice. I can't imagine why he selected Shriver, of all people, to take Eagleton's place. Ted Kennedy, Walter Mondale, Hubert Humphrey, any number of candidates would've filled this ticket much better.

Humphrey/Muskie-Difficult race. I believe that Muskie helped the ticket. Humphrey would've made an excellent president.

Johnson/Humphrey-Humphrey, one of the greatest senators to be sent to Washington, IMHO, was an excellent addition to the ticket.

Kennedy/Johnson-Geography, name recognition, political clout, Johnson was a wonderful addition to the ticket.