Did Kerry say when he'd announce his VP?

[fujiyama]

Being that Bush has had a slight bounce in recent weeks following the Reagan death, the Iraq "handover", and a slightly improving economy, it might not hurt to announce the VP a few weeks before the convention...My guess is that it seems like its going to be Edwards, and I think the excitement and enthusiasm will definetely help and give Kerry a bounce.

Is the plan to announce before the convention?

[deminflorida]

1. My guess is that Edwards would eventually bounce Bush back

into the White House. Kerry will wait and review the security situation in Iraq following the turnover. Then he'll make his decision.

I watched F/911 tonight. You know in 2000 when they were certifying the stolen election. We couldn't find one Senator when we needed them as Democrats, now your saying we need TWO?

[leftistagitator]

2. Edwards is smart, affable, and a Southerner

People seem to be drawn to him in a Clintonesqe way. I wouldn't be surprised if he's President one day. He has a nice bio, worked his way up from lower-middle class to be a successful trial lawyer, taking on big corporations to help the little guy. Look, Lieberman was a Senator, he was the vp, if Gore was in any mood to continue the fight he would have gotten at least that Senate vote. He obviously told Democratic Senators to drop it, that was Gore's decision not Edwards. Face it, we won the election but lost the spin war in the recount aftermath. We were blindsided by a pro-Bush media, although we shouldn't have been because the signs were all there with the bs serial liar crap they threw at Gore. We also never expected Republicans would resort to violence to prevent the votes from being counted. We just are going to have to be on our toes this time around, they will try this crap again. This time if there are any bourgeois riots the proles will be there to kick their asses.

[bitchkitty]

4. I love it!

This time if there are any bourgeois riots the proles will be there to kick their asses.

:)

[incapsulated]

3. McAuliffe said...

In two weeks. Which makes sense, just before the convention.

[Thrill]

5. I think its going to be a huge disappointment

for th majority of Dems if Edwards isn't the pick. Gephardt and Vilsack don't do a damn thing to excite anyone.

[cosmokramer]

6. So what?

You actually think Kerry is going to be pressured into liking someone for the job that he doesn't really want?

Edwards has hurt himself by being overly agressive and actively campaigning for the job, and Kerry doesn't want someone without the requisite experience in national security.

Folks are fogetting that the base doesn't need to be 'excited' to get out and vote--they are going to storm to the polls no matter who is VP because the anger against the Bush administration, and the stolen 2000 election, is the biggest motivating factor we have had in recent history.

We need the people who will vote for Bush unless we democrats solidify behind the 'national security' issue and own it: the swing voters. We don't win them with 'Two Americas' when they are so clearly going to vote on which candidate makes them feel 'safe'.

I don't care or not if the nominee is Clark as long as the chosen VP is significantly experienced in matters of national security/foreign policy and the like--otherwise, the GOP will constantly attack us, and set the tone, that we are 'weak' on national security, and they will attack Kerry for not choosing someone who has this experience 'in a time of war'.

[sleipnir]

7. It's going to be a major disappointment no matter who is picked

The party is so fractured right now on "candidate" lines that no matter who the VP is, it will alienate and anger a good pularity of Dems.

Example, if they pick Edwards, kiss the left-wing, activist-base and anti-war votes goodbye. That could be enough to lose the election...

If they pick Clark, many Centrists will be angered, perhaps enough will stay home and it could cost Kerry the election.

Or if they pick Vilsack, he's got little name recognition and will certainly not excite the "swing" voters that Kerry has been trying to court.

If it's Gephardt, well, just about everyone will be disappointed...except for the DINOS.



I still say that no matter who the pick is there will be at least 30% of the party that is extremly unhappy, possibly alientated from the election.

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. I think that may be true of some activist types

But I don't think the typical Democratic voter will be very disappointed no matter who Kerry picks. Maybe a little but they will get over it by the actual convention if not sooner. Everyone looks good in the light of the Convention. Who Kerry picks does matter, it might effect which fence leeners fall our way, and it will effect how the campaign is run, but the VP pick is not an initial deal breaker to non activist voters, and most activists hate Bush enough that it won't stop them from working for Kerry either, even if they don't like the VP pick. Of course there will be exceptions to that...

[cosmokramer]

12. You are right...

...dems will vote AGAINST Bush, no matter who the VP is...the big question is who will appeal to the middle non-party committed?

[janx]

9. While that might be true on DU,

I don't think it'll happen to the average voter. People who vote and want the Chimpster out will vote for Kerry no matter who he picks for the VP candidate.

[sleipnir]

13. You're probably right, but I fear that the activist-base could be lost.

more so than the centrists. Gore lost a lot of the left, and far-left votes in 2000 due to his VP selection of Lieberman. I remember that many of my friends in college refused to vote for the ticket beacuse of Lieberman. They instead voted third party, because they couldn't stand the VP, and the platform was too centrist. Sadly, one of those friends voted in Florida, absentee ballot. I can only imagine that thousands people voted the same and in the end, it cost Gore the election, by forcing an re-count and the mess that ensued.

I'm just saying that Kerry is more apt to lose a few activists this time around if he picks, say Gephardt, which might be enough to cost him an important state and then we have a replay of 2000.

Note: The Greens have put up a viable candidate alternative to Nader and Kerry, which could easily draw enough votes (if Kerry goes with a DINO for a VP) to cause a recount, in say, Ohio, which costs Kerry the election.

I guess the short story is that Kerry must consider the risks of leaning either left or center, is it worth trying to get centrist voters or is worth possibly angering enough of the left to leave the party?

I don't think that ABB is strong enough of an arguement for Kerry to "write-off" the activist-base, it's too risky, but so is leaning too far to the left.

[Darkamber]

14. It is a difficult choice facing Kerry...

It is hard to please everyone. He is viewed by the GOP as far left. I don't see him that way, but the GOP drags out the "his voting record is to the left of Ted Kennedy". So what does he do? Go to the center where most of the voters are? Lose the left?

What bothered me most is what you said about the college voters. This is a HUGE group that isn't voting. Dean did inspire them and might have activated that base.

I think Kerry's talking about Education over and over again is a good move, but what would bring out these younger voters? What do you see as the most important issue to them? Is it all the war or is it something else as well? Or maybe a combination of several issues.

[RafterMan]

10. So you're saying

that Kerry could appease the left-wing anti-war activist base by choosing the former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO for VP?

I'm not saying you're wrong, but it's pretty funny.

[cosmokramer]

11. Considering that the former SACEUR...

...was in fact AGAINST the war in Iraq, and was right about the aftermath of said war, YES, he would appease the base and bring confidence to the ticket for indies who are deeply concerned about National Security...and certainly that is a better position than two persons who voted for the war with one of those persons still believing it was the right thing to do and the right time to do it.