The Command Post - 2004 US Presidential Election

March 04, 2004

| What Are the Odds?

Taegan Goddard has James Carville’s odds on Kerry’s VP selection:

* John Edwards — 6 to 5: “What Kerry needs is someone to defend him and help make his case. If you had to hire a lawyer to defend you, name a better one.”
* Dick Gephardt — 5 to 1: “He is generally regarded as the most prepared to be president, suggests Mr. Carville, and as a man of enormous personal and public probity.”
* Bill Richardson — 5 to 1: “Not as articulate as Edwards or as qualified as Gephardt but gives some of both.” But Carville has some advice: to Gov. Richardson: “Go on a diet.”
* Evan Bayh — 7 to 1: “A fresh face, an Edwards of the Midwest, where the 2004 election may be settled. The Indiana Democrat was governor before he was senator, and would bring some executive experience to a Kerry ticket.”
* Bob Graham — 7 to 1: “He’s the most popular figure in the most controversial state in the country.”
* Hillary Clinton — 15 to 1: “She she would bring instant money … to both parties and probably bring a lot more women in.

My money is still on Bayh.

Posted by Michele at March 4, 2004 09:06 PM | TrackBack

Comments

Smart Woman=Michelle. The problem with the whole VP thing is: it is and always will be the #2 spot. Guess you have to be a second guesser and hope NOT… but there again… hope! (if Kerry gets in someone tempers his tail spin)

Posted by: Sallie at March 4, 2004 10:12 PM

I think Bayh is too good looking for “do you know who I’m” Kerry. He just can’t stand being overshadowed. From the list, I think it would either be Richardson or Graham.

Posted by: ic at March 4, 2004 10:15 PM

Gephart id lay my money on, hes been running in every election for as long as i can remember (which isnt long i admit). But maybe Clark will reappear as a sucker punch, double millitary Vet ticket.

Posted by: Ronin at March 5, 2004 12:48 AM

Question: who cares what Carville thinks? An old politico and hanger-on who should have stayed under the rock he crawled out from under.

Posted by: popd at March 5, 2004 07:39 AM

I think kerry should lose. Even all the democrats should lose. Bush should win if we want to survive.

Posted by: Karan at March 5, 2004 10:59 AM

I’ll guess Gephardt. There’s no sense shoring up the anti-America constituency, he’s got to reach those who supported the old Democratic party.

Posted by: A Bridge Too Far at March 5, 2004 11:05 AM

A Bridge Too Far,

I am sorry to have inform you that
the Loyal, Patriotic and Sane American
Democratic Party is DECEASED.

Posted by: leaddog2 at March 5, 2004 02:04 PM

Think a little outside the box for a minute.

Kerry is a man; pick a woman as a running mate.
Kerry is from the east; pick a westerner (or southerner, or someone from the southwest).

Sen. Diane Feinstein (Ca)
Sen. Patty Murray (Wa)
Isn’t the governor of Az a woman and Democrat (the name escapes me right now)?

I know a little about Evan Bayh, and I don’t think he would run with Kerry.
I don’t think Edwards and Kerry like each other very much, and it would start to show after a while.

Posted by: cincinnatus at March 5, 2004 06:28 PM

Think of it this way, who wants to jump on a sinking ship and go down with it? We know kerry the coward will probably jump off at the last moment…
It will probably be Sharpton, he’s got nothing to loose, while everyone else does.

Posted by: Fat Guy at March 6, 2004 03:38 AM

Edwards showed an ability to garner independent and Republican votes in the primaries; Gephardt is boring and conducive to sleep (Kerry and Gephardt on the same stage would be a serious downer); the rest are essentially invisiable and unknown outside their own states, except Clinton, who has better things to do than be anyone’s veep candidate.

Hardly anyone votes for a candidate because they like the veep choice, but they do vote against a candidate because the veep candidate does something they don’t like.

Posted by: billg at March 6, 2004 06:52 PM

No way Bayh gets it. Bayh got vetoed from Gore’s list in 2000 by the pro-abortion lobby. He can’t pass the litmus test unless he does an about-face on his support for a partial-birth abortion ban (Gephardt, who was pro-life until he started running for president, will have the same problem).

Posted by: Crank at March 6, 2004 10:37 PM

Kerry Met With Viet Cong And North Vietnamese In Paris In 1971
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1091943/posts

Kerry’s Group Met With The Viet Cong In Paris In 1971

The Vietnam Veterans Against The War (VVAW) sent their own delegation to Paris to meet with the representatives of the National Liberation Front (AKA Viet Cong) in 1971. At this time John Kerry was their spokesman and defacto leader.

He then met with congress
Kerry was negotiating with the enemy.

Posted by: Fat Guy at March 7, 2004 04:10 AM

Bush has been a lousy president and does not deserve to be re-elected.

How long will it take for you guys to admit that Vietnam was a mistake, something like Iraq. The only real winner in Vietnam was Becthel (built Camran Bay Port). Guess who is getting our money in Iraq?

Republicans never can admit they are wrong, such as right now. We have proven that the economic policies of Reagan do not work. After two trickle down tax cuts, our economy is still in the toilet. Looking for work-good luck!

Posted by: Sonny Reed at March 10, 2004 12:02 AM

Robert Rubin… Bill Clinton’s treasury secretary would be a great VP (barring any ghosts in his closet). He has fiscal experience, is a terrific human being, and is a genius.

Edwards would be another great choice.

Nice guy does not necessarily mean weak or stupid. We need leadership which can unite people who have differing ideas… not egomaniacs bent on shoving an insane agenda down our throats.

Posted by: ND native at April 15, 2004 12:48 AM

Is anyone taking bets on weather or not there will even be an election this year? I think Bush will cancel the election and declare martial law.

Posted by: Stan at June 1, 2004 08:20 PM