All opinions posted. None too pathetic or contrived. Everyone gets their say.

"...even the wicked get worse than they deserve." - Willa Cather, One of Ours

Tuesday, July 06, 2004

Senator John Edwards for Vice President

Political Animal (liberal)
...So far, everyone seems pretty pleased with the choice.

I am too. Edwards was my personal second choice in the primaries, so obviously I think he's qualified to be president — which certainly ought to be the uppermost consideration. What's more, he's a good speaker, he has generally good policy instincts, he's a Southerner, and while he may not be an attack dog, he can throw some pretty good barbs on the campaign trail when necessary.

The fact that Kerry was willing to choose someone who's a more charismatic speaker than himself — and will inevitably take some of his spotlight away — speaks well for him. Like they say, first rate people hire other first rate people. Second rate people hire third rate people. This was a first rate choice.
I still think Gephardt would have been a better choice, but I like Edwards a lot. The problem is that the VP won't have any real effect on voters, especially since his home state of North Carolina is a lock for Bush. You pick a VP to show you can make good decisions (Kerry accomplishes this point), and to get someone who could step in to the VP job and help your administration in some way.

Gephardt would be very helpful in dealing with congress, while Edwards has no particular area of expertise other than campaigning.

Anyway, this is all water under the bridge. Edwards will do a good job for Kerry duting the campaign, and you've got to get elected before you can govern.

This is a good beginning.

Another item: based on historical comparisons of the "who do you intend to vote for" question, Kerry should now begin to significantly pull ahead of Bush. Even contenders who have lost have had a 5-8% lead over the sitting President by the end of the party convention. Contenders who win usually have an even larger margin (12-14%).

Since this margin has historically rapidly dwindled as the election neared, it is essential that Kerry build as big a lead as possible. If Kerry doesn't have a least an 8% lead (about 52% vs 44%), than Kerry is just so much dead meat and has no chance of defeating Bush. On the other hand, if Kerry can come out of Boston with a 14% lead (about 55% vs 41%), then he has a good chance of winning.

Check the polls on the first week of August. That will tell the tale.

Comments:
-
Thanks for the compliments Doug.

Your sadness at Kerry's potential loss is touching.

I am a liberal hawk. So as long as Kerry maintians a strong war stance he still has my support. But if he waffles during his acceptance speach in Boston, then I will have to reconsider.

My vote in the Presidential elections doesn't really matter anyway. Washington State is a strong Kerry state (Kerry +7%) and an upset here is very, very unlikely. If in the end I decide to not vote for either Presidential candidate, it will make no difference. It will be a purely symbolic act.
-
 
Post a Comment

<< Home