How could John Kerry run a better campaign in 04?

Okay, besides John Edwards and Howard Dean, who would you say would be better suited for vice presidency?

As a fellow who very much distrusts the Democrats and generally votes Republican (have voted for specific dem's in state and local elections and am technically unaffiliated, though it's fair to say I lean to the right), I really liked Dick Gephardt... I don't know if he as the VP would have swayed my vote to Kerry, though it wouldn't have hurt... and I understand he had some fairly serious union credibility, and Ohio is a fairly unionized state... might have just done it.

From the Democrat's angle, I can't see how it was anything other than good that Kerry lost... I have trouble seeing how Iraq is ever resolved in a "good" way and if/when it all goes south I think the Republicans would be quite able to blame the "failure" on the Democrats and I'm not sure how they can effectively defend themselves from that electorally regardless of how much the impending quagmire is actually their fault.
 
From the Democrat's angle, I can't see how it was anything other than good that Kerry lost... I have trouble seeing how Iraq is ever resolved in a "good" way and if/when it all goes south I think the Republicans would be quite able to blame the "failure" on the Democrats and I'm not sure how they can effectively defend themselves from that electorally regardless of how much the impending quagmire is actually their fault.

What are you talking about? The situation in Iraq had big ups and big downs, but ended by 2008 in very good shape.

Sure Kerry winning is a huge net negative for dems, but Iraq is a relatively small reason. The biggest being the coming economic crisis, followed by Katrina as no matter what the federal government did it wasn't going to make up for the poor response of the state and local government nor the size of the problem.

Iraq would have only hurt the dems somewhat in 2006, Kerry wouldn't have gotten that much flack for events a year or two into his Presidency over it, but the economic crisis was an omega level disaster waiting to befall whoever was in the WH at the time for 2008.
 
Last edited:
Rehnquist is still going to die, and O'Connor's husband is still going to have health issues. Two Supreme Court appointees is enough to swing the court.

O'Connor, though not a far-right Republican ,was nevertheless a quite partisan one; she reportedly said "This is terrible" when CBS called Florida for Gore in 2000. https://books.google.com/books?id=LnAj6XG6wDkC&pg=PA102 This doesn't mean she wasn't concerned about her husband's health--but she still might have decided to stay on the court until (she hoped) the Republicans would win in 2008.

True, replacing Rehnquist will still be a big deal--but if the GOP wins in 2008 and 2012, can the Democrats count on Stevens to stay on the Court until he is 96? (OF course, maybe Stevens will retire before 2008.)
 
Good Lord, this REALLY should be in chat.

I said that. Banned for plagairism.:mad: usertron2020 banned for inability to spell "plaigarism".

I would say Dick Gephardt. He could've swung Missouri and might've made the difference in Ohio. Bob Graham might've been able to swing Florida, although that might be a stretch considering W. did significantly better there in 2004 than he did in 2000. Either one of them would've been better than Edwards and while I do like Howard Dean, it would be too soon for him to be Kerry's running mate as the "Dean Scream" would've been fresh in people's minds.

If there's one thing we've learned over the years its that House Congressmen make terrible running mates. At least in terms of political power bases. They've only run in district elections. If they had had previous experience as governors, thats another thing.

Honorable Mention for Paul Ryan. He seemed to introduce a fresh dynamic to the Romney campaign that was sorely needed. If he hadn't had such a draconian economic policy, and was at the top of the ticket as a former governor or senator, the GOP would have done much better IMVHO.

Rehnquist is still going to die, and O'Connor's husband is still going to have health issues. Two Supreme Court appointees is enough to swing the court.

Yes, but if the Dems win in 2004 Bush could well call in an emergency lame-duck session of the Senate to ram through replacements for Rehnquist, O'Connor, and even maybe Thomas and Kennedy IF it was genuinely feared that Kerry could be re-elected.

Granted, it is very unlikely that any of these justices will say yes to retirement, even O'Connor (she was perhaps the only member of the Gang of Five to show any guilt over Bush v. Gore). But Rehnquist MIGHT if he thought he could prevent the next Chief Justice from being a Democrat. There hasn't been a Dem Chief Justice since Earl Warren took over. Plus his own health was deteriorating rapidly by this time.
 
BTW, have Joe Lieberman as his running mate, not Edwards.[/QUOTE]

Lieberman's support for the Iraq war would alienate much of the Democratic base. I don't think the Democratic Convention would nominate him.
 
Lieberman is a no go. hell I don't think he even accepts that by 04 Joe was a Republican but still calling himself a democrat. He would lose a primary in 06 and run as a independent and hold his seat.

Did he not back Bush in the general election??
 


http://vicepresidents.com/blog/2012/07/30/lessons-romney-can-learn-from-kerry/

In retrospect, Kerry should have went with a safer bet. Personally, I think Dick Gephardt was the obvious choice. In fact, it was so obvious that the NY Post jumped the gun and ran an erroneous front page “exclusive” that Gephardt was named as Kerry’s running mate!
Even though Gephardt lost in his 1988 bid for the Presidency and dropped out of the 2004 race after a sort of ugly battle with Howard Dean, he had a solid 28-year history as former majority and minority leader in the House of Representatives. He had very strong ties to labor and battleground Midwestern states — his home state being Missouri, where he was exceedingly popular. He was a relatively successful fundraiser and a devoted team player. He was a known quantity with a storied career in public life who was seasoned enough to survive a debate against Dick Cheney any day.
Kerry felt comfortable and great chemistry with Gephardt, it was said. Yet, he felt “queasy” about Edwards. Even so, the team said they were not looking for personalities to click as much as they were looking for “the strongest choice.” According to Bob Shrum, Kerry “liked Gephardt, was confident he was up to the job of being president, and hoped he might help carry Missouri, which could make the difference in a close election. But both he and Teresa worried that Gephardt was a gray choice who wouldn’t light any fires.” Kerry didn’t need a fire so much at that point as he needed a bucket of water to cool off some of those hot accusations!
Other journalists mentioned VA Governor Mark Warner, who was less well-known but would have performed well as Kerry’s #2. He was a moderate southern Democrat, a Washington outsider and a charismatic young man who could have given Bush a run for his money in Virginia, not to mention other swing states like Florida, Iowa, Missouri, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and West Virginia.
Another possibility would have been Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack who served a 16-year term. He could have easily taken Iowa and Pennsylvania (where he had roots). Tom was not only chairman of the Democratic Governors’ Association, which gave him a foothold in Washington, but he also had a small town appeal and an ability to connect with people in a very genuine way. He even had a touching rags-to-riches story of being left at a Pittsburgh orphanage as an infant that would redirect the focus away from some of the negative press against Kerry. It was said of him that he “can do a policy wonk speech, but he can also touch people’s hearts.” That would have been great to see in the debates.
 
Admit that he actually was fore using force against Iraq because he did in fact vote for it instead of trying to twist himself into the shape of a pretzel while claiming that he did vote for but didn't really mean it.

He could have taken the whole issue off the table by simply saying, "Yes I voted for, yes I thought it was the right thing to do at the time but obviously the Bush Administration has hosed it up. In fact, by and large I agree with President Bush's strategy but his tactics are horrible so put me in the White House and I'll keep the same basic strategy but I'll do a better job of executing it." Or something like that.

I don't know how that plays with the anti-war base that Howard Dean whipped up though. In fact, I've long believed that Dean probably cost Kerry the election.

BTW, have Joe Lieberman as his running mate, not Edwards.

Edwards didn't hurt him in 04, but he would have been caught by his scandal sometime before 08.
 
What are you talking about? The situation in Iraq had big ups and big downs, but ended by 2008 in very good shape.

You're right, I've let my cynicism get the better of me, I'm pretty convinced that by 2015 in any timeline, Iraq is likely to look like a mess regardless who is president and I let that color my memory, but in 2008 it was looking pretty good and there is no reason Kerry couldn't have achieved that as well.

It would be amusing to read an ATL with Kerry as president and the "surge" in Iraq, with Republicans in Congress trying to thread the needle between being the opposition party and the "support the troops" party.
 
I doubt very much that choosing Gephardt would have made a difference. It is sometimes suggested that he could have made Missouri competitive. But in the first place, remember that he had never run for statewide office in Missouri, and second, it is not as though Missouri was that close--it went for Bush by 53.3%-46.1%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2004 It is very unlikely that a 7.2 point lead could be wiped out by a *vice* presidential home-state advantage (I'm not even sure that a *presidential* home-state advantage goes that far). http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...verrated-vice-presidential-home-state-effect/

Maybe Gephardt would have been a more effective campaigner for Kerry in Ohio, but I think that almost all voters there as elsewhere voted for the top of the ticket.
 
I doubt very much that choosing Gephardt would have made a difference. It is sometimes suggested that he could have made Missouri competitive. But in the first place, remember that he had never run for statewide office in Missouri, and second, it is not as though Missouri was that close--it went for Bush by 53.3%-46.1%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2004 It is very unlikely that a 7.2 point lead could be wiped out by a *vice* presidential home-state advantage (I'm not even sure that a *presidential* home-state advantage goes that far). http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...verrated-vice-presidential-home-state-effect/

Maybe Gephardt would have been a more effective campaigner for Kerry in Ohio, but I think that almost all voters there as elsewhere voted for the top of the ticket.

Yeah, here's something that's proven to be more effective (still not perfect):
http://www.american.edu/media/news/20100712_Lichtman_Predicts_Obama_Wins_Reelection_2012.cfm
 
Top