The VP will be Edwards

[lsusteel]

Particularly if this race drags on much longer.

If we pick someone like Webb, Sebelius, or Schweitzer, it will be a race to define them. And color me cynical, but it's much easier to define someone with dirt than it is with accomplishments. If Republicans push those excerpts from Webb's book within a week after Webb gets put on the ticket, and the MSM gives them play, Obama/Webb is done.

Edwards is well-known. He is well-liked. There is little risk of him being defined negatively by the Republicans. He connects strongly with the low-income voters because of his well-publicized poverty campaign. Obama/Edwards currently polls far better than every other Obama ticket, so his floor is much higher.

The risk of Obama/Edwards is that it could be portrayed as an elitist ticket. Edwards might be seen as the "perennial VP candidate." Inexperience?

Gore is another candidate who fits this mold, but I worry about his general perception as being ridiculously liberal. This stems from him being at the forefront of what is seen as a "liberal" issue. It doesn't matter that he is actually less liberal than Edwards and many other Dems. Perception, in this case, is reality.

If anyone else can think of a VP candidate that is well-known, well-liked (aka not Clinton), and helps Obama among those lower income voters, I'd love to hear it.

(It' interesting to note, however, that Edwards hurts Obama among whites and hispanics in the latest Michigan poll. I'd like to see Obama/Edwards polled in Texas, New Mexico, and Nevada).

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=52d98ca6-6c14-4f4a-9180-4e7f1fce8a1a

[high density]

1. I think the chance of that is pretty much zero

Just play back the Edwards v. Cheney debate and the vetting for him can end. He just doesn't bring enough to the table as a VP candidate.

[George_Bonanza]

6. To be fair, I'm sure Edwards has learned his lessons from 2004

John Kerry too has learned to be more forceful since 2004, and I'm sure Edwards has as well.

[George_Bonanza]

2. Elitist??? F*ck me!

The children of a poor single mothers and poor mill workers are elitists?!

[2rth2pwr]

12. Yes, it is possible. Elitism has nothing to do with money, it's an attitude.

[George_Bonanza]

23. Doesn't "elite" mean GOOD?

To paraphrase Jon Stewart.

[2rth2pwr]

40. Yes, it can. Elitist can mean look down upon the average American.

[lsusteel]

18. $400 haircut perception = elitist perception

You seem to be forgetting that not all of America (see: most of America) is not as politically aware as we are.

[2rth2pwr]

3. What states does Edwards bring? Edwards last time couldn't even

carry his home county.

[lsusteel]

16. Picking a VP on geography is stupid

No evidence it works.

[Alexander]

25. So you think JFK would've won Texas without Lyndon Johnson?

The very state where he got a bullet in his head campaigning for re-election?

[lsusteel]

32. Is it so hard to believe?

Texas went Truman in 48, Humphrey in 68, and Carter in 76.

It was very Ohio-ish.

[Triana]

4. It will not. Edwards has already said "no thanks" n/t

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[onehandle]

37. Thanks for pushing freeper terms at Democratic Underground.

You're a class act.

Skinner addressed this the other day. He was against it.

[TwilightGardener]

46. Wha? He's not our candidate, and I used those in the context of the post.

Jesus, get over yourself. Pretending the mockery of John Edwards does not exist does not serve us well.

[onehandle]

48. Talk to Skinner.

Plead your case that it was in context that you namecalled a Democrat with freeper terms.

See how that works out.

[TwilightGardener]

49. I didn't "name-call" him, I used an example of how the GOP has ALREADY defined him, in reply

to the OP who said that Edwards has not been negatively defined. If I ROUTINELY referred to Edwards as the Silky Pony or the Breck Girl, no matter the context of the thread, then you might have a point. But I don't. I'm not a big fan of his, but I don't call him silly names, either.

[MethuenProgressive]

7. Clinton/Edwards '08!

Hillary and Elizabeth!

[AllentownJake]

15. He's not loyal enough for the Queen

he went against her wishes and endorsed Obama.

[musicblind]

38. I doubt she holds any deep personal ill will towards Edwards.

I am a Hillary supporter and I understand his decision at this point in the game. It is almost over. I am sure that she understands this as well. I think in her mind there is a difference in the way it took place between Edwards and Richardson's endorsements.


Though personally I was fine with both. People should endorse who they want.

But I don't think she is holding a grudge on this one. imho

[AllentownJake]

50. I think she holds grudges

on all of Obama's endorsers and looks forward to inflicting her punishment.

[musicblind]

51. Hmm. Well I think that's being a little hard on her.

She seems like a sweet person, I don't think she would hold a grudge against Edwards. She probably will feel hurt by Richardson but I think in time those feelings will subside.

[billybob537]

17. CUE: the Twilight Zone theme

[AllentownJake]

8. When they do VP polling

The campaigns

They do it by demographical traits, the potential candidates main issues, and geographic location.

John Edwards is a white protestant southern senator with a passion for social justice and speaking up for the impovershed. He isn't John Edwards.

[XemaSab]

9. No thanks

n/t

[maxsolomon]

Dodd? Biden?

BHO could use someone who knows DC & how to work it.

Obama + Edwards = too green, too pretty, too lawyer-y.

[lsusteel]

21. I said likable eom

There is a reason Mccain/Romney beats Obama/Biden by 18.

[Muttocracy]

36. but that is with 24% saying "not sure" - not statistically different from Edwards results. nt

[lsusteel]

41. Yet Edwards trails by 3; Biden trails by 18 nt

[Muttocracy]

43. but in both cases a huge chunk says "don't know" - making the margins meaningless. nt

[MadBadger]

10. I dont expect McCain to pick Romney or even Huckabee, so I think your argument wont matter;

[JimGinPA]

11. Joe Biden

:patriot:

[billybob537]

13. Edwards is the only cantidate

Who continually out polled all others in the GE polls and we didn't pick him. Shame on us!
If we lose this to Grampa McShame, it's our own fault.

[frazzled]

26. The only candidate whose name anyone knew

Sheesh ... if you people believe in these polls so much, why bother to have an election? Just install the poll winner. Problem is, each poll says something different, and polls this far out from an election are meaningless.

Edwards would be a terrible candidate for many reasons, but these 3 might be tops:

(1) He already ran in this capacity and the ticket lost.
(2) He brings no states.
(3) He looked really bad with Obama during the endorsement: he said nothing about the candidate and displayed a self-important line of his own that is not the hallmark of a vice-presidential running mate.

I'd actually rather have Hillary than Edwards, and that's saying a lot.

[lsusteel]

28. Obviously you didn't read the post

If this race goes on beyond June...if it goes to the convention...

You really want to put someone on the ticket who starts down 18 in the polls?

Picking a candidate for geography is hit or miss with anyone, not just Edwards.

You think Sebelius alone will deliver Kansas?

[AllentownJake]

30. People vote top of ticket

not bottom of the ticket.

As long as the VP does his/her job of hitting the GOPs Presidential candidate he's doing his/her job.

[lsusteel]

33. Exactly

The VPs job is to not detract from the ticket.

Edwards is the lowest risk pick there is.

[Muttocracy]

14. no national security or governing experience; only 1 term as senator. Doubt it. nt

[End Of The Road]

19. Not a chance.

To assure a win, he's got to have someone with military and/or heavy foreign policy experience.

[lsusteel]

24. Yes, and admit weakness

Conventional wisdom says Obama must do what you just said.

But if he does that, he admits that he doesn't know enough about those things. He shows weakness.

Elections are not about issues. They're about likability.

Obama isn't beating Clinton because people like his stances more than Clinton's.

[End Of The Road]

31. Nope.

National security is a big issue for many voters, both sides of the aisle. They'll see it as strengthening the ticket, not a sign of weakness.

Edited to add: And there are some mighty likable people that would fit the bill -- Wes Clark, for example.

[PBS Poll-435]

20. ROFL - Nothing Says "CHANGE," like ....

Picking the guy who was on the ticket last time.

(And didn't really help much.)

[lsusteel]

22. One thing all of you are forgetting

Presidential elections have nothing to do with the issues.

Likability is everything. Managing to make it through the season without your closet full of skeletons opened is everything.

There is a reason Richardson won't be the VP. His qualifications are impeccable, but he's just not that likable.

[Milo_Bloom]

27. No war voters on the ticket, unless you want to lose.

[WA98296]

29. I love it. A more concentrated populist message!

[Doityourself]

34. I'd go with Biden wayyy before Edwards.

[lsusteel]

39. Every political aficionado would

But the majority of voters are politically stupid.

Likability is more important than stances on the issues.

Elections are beauty contests.

[lsusteel]

35. I'd also like to add that I'm not a fan of this ticket

I'm trying to look at it logically and objectively, assuming this race drags on.

[onehandle]

42. Democratic Underground's favorite candidate has already dismissed this. nt

[lsusteel]

44. We all know no one has said "no way" before accepting nt

[keep_it_real]

45. Does anyone know the title of Webb's book?

I'd like to check it out on Amazon.

[4_Legs_Good]

47. It won't be Edwards (I'm still pulling for Mark Warner)

for several reasons:

1. He proved himself ineffectual at the bottom of the ticket in 2004
2. He doesn't bring anything to the ticket that Obama doesn't already have, except for a Southern Accent.
3. He has no more experience than Obama

OTOH, I'd blame a significant amount of his inability to help in 2004 on Kerry, who was just so boring that I think any animation from Edwards would have been seen as outshining Kerry.

I'd still suggest Mark Warner as my #1 choice, as he'll carry VA, and hopefully help out a lot in that whole region.

I also think Richardson has enough name recognition to fill the bill, as does Biden.

David

[newmajority]

52. The AG will be Edwards

The VP will be Richardson.

[David Zephyr]

53. Respectfully, it won't happen. Edwards is not a team player and caused Kerry a lot of trouble.

Barack has John Kerry in his inner circle of advisors and after Edwards bickering with John Kerry in 2004, Edwards will not be the VP.

Also, Edwards can not deliver his own home state in a national election.

He brings nothing in electoral votes and proved to be a troublemaker for our ticket in 2004.

I like Edwards and he will make a good AG, but he won't be Obama's choice.

[Bake]

54. GORE is a candidate??? Have you lost your mind?

The man could have been President if he'd simply said the word. No way in hell he accepts the veep slot.

Bake