I know this question may have been asked many times before, but

[Aussie leftie]

if the ticket had been reversed in the 04 presidential election campaign, with Edwards running for president and Kerry as vice president, would the final result have been the same?

[babylonsister]

1. Edwards did run but lost in the primaries, so it wouldn't have happened.

He's cultivated his name recognition and causes now, along with his lovely wife Elizabeth, who's very popular.

[MADem]

2. Let me check my Eight Ball. Gee, signs point to NO.

A little problem with voting machines would have made sure of that.


If Ronnie Reagan had gone to the mad scientist and gotten a full overhaul from brain to toenails, good for another fifty years, instead of dying in June 04, and switched to the Democratic ticket, it wouldn't have mattered.

That election was 'in the bag.'

You get the election you pay for--just ask George.

[RacingBobbie]

3. Yeah, george

paid off the people to make those machines work in his favor. He is nothing but pure evil

[uppityperson]

5. Wow, you've made it to 14 posts. Congrats.

[babylonsister]

7. Your last sentence is correct. Enjoy your stay. nt

[tblue]

4. Edwards did want to fight for a fair recount, I'll grant him that. But the fix was in long before

to steal 4% of the votes (or was it 7%? I forget), and they did.

[BeyondGeography]

6. Kerry was the obviously the right man between the two

The Republicans would have torn up Edwards on national security, the war on terror and Iraq, which is essentially what the 2004 election was all about. Edwards' two Americas angle would have been useless in the GE; the state of mind of the country at the time and the Republicans' Terrapalooza convention would have forced Edwards to play their game, and he would have been spectacularly ill-suited for it compared with Kerry.

Even though he voted for IWR, Kerry had articulated a much stronger critique of the war than Edwards throughout the primaries and made a lot of headway with it during the presidential campaign. Kerry's foreign policy skills and experience are exponentially greater than Edwards', and you saw it in that first debate, when he annihilated Bush in one of the best presidential debating performances I've ever seen.

We all know Kerry's shortfalls, but Democrats made an intelligent choice in nominating him in 2004; swiftboating and all, his military background was an enormous asset (just wish he defended it better), and, unlike Edwards, he had spent many years dealing with foriegn policy and national security issues. I think he was the best option at the time, plus he came very close to winning.

[Aussie leftie]

8. There aren't too many campaigns that I can remember where

the war hero is made out to be the villain and the draft dodger is the hero. I agree with you that Kerry should have fought back more. It just goes to show how advantageous incumbency is.

[iamjoy]

9. Hard To Say

Many of the other posts here make excellent points about Kerry's statesmanship and experience and how people were not ready to hear Edwards talk about the "Two Americas"

BUT - I also think a good chunk of the voters out there don't really vote logically or on the issues. To an extent, they decide whether or not they "like" a candidate. For all Kerry's qualities that would have made him an outstanding president, people just didn't like him. You can point to the Swift Boat smears and war talk, but remember the Republicans hit Clinton pretty hard in 1992, and he still won.

As for Kerry winning the primary. It really seemed like he was lagging all the way up until a couple of weeks before the Iowa caucus. We Democrats wanted to win VERY badly. And, the frequent voters DO tend to think logically when picking a candidate. Besides, in small forums, Kerry DOES come across as likeable. So he won Iowa. That got him a lot of attention, the media started hyping him the way they had been pushing Dean. But Dean peaked too soon. We were so concerned about uniting behind a candidate that no one else really had a chance.

[Aussie leftie]

10. Unfortunately, these days with access to the media in so many different ways

charisma plays a vital role. Clinton certainly had it, and so did George Bush. I have seen interviews with people from Ohio, that said they would not vote for Kerry because he was so wealthy, he could not relate to the common folk and that George Bush was like one of them. The media distorts a lot of situations. If you look back many years, up until Kennedy came along, all the politicians were a very droll lot, but they still got the job done. Sadly, these days, to run for president, you need money, intelligence, looks, charisma and maybe some good policies.

[Clark2008]

11. No.

Despite his trying hard to push that Southern accent, he wouldn't have picked up any Southern or mid-Western states.