I have a serious question about the 2008 election.

[politicaholic]

Bush and Cheney were very effective in pounding their message through the whole 2004 election and were able to split their time focusing on who they needed to verbally destroy with their Rovian web of lies.

My question is:

Why doesn't the strongest democratic candidate in 2008 declare a running mate right out of the gate, say June 2007?

If they are confident as a team, work together, and stay consistantly on message wouldn't that be a more effective method of campaigning? I understand that the shot in the arm the polls get when a candidate chooses a VP a couple of months before election day is an important strategy. I've never been a big believer in polls. I believe a voter confidence increase could also be achieved by high profile meetings with foreign leaders and launching an effective campaign that appeals to young voters 18-25. A demographic that didn't show up in 2004.

What do you think?

[shoelace414]

1. when it comes down to it,

the VP means little.

[beyurslf]

2. I think most people would be reluctant to be picked VP by someone

who is not the nominee. What if that person loses the nomination? Then the one was his/her VP would not be considered as VP for the person who won. You don't get unlimited chances to be picked as VP and I would think you'd want your options open to the person who was really the nominee.

[CWebster]

3. I think they will attack relentlessly with few scruples

no matter what.

Whose gonna stop them?

[Silverhair]

4. Rarely is the VP important.

Although a bad VP choice can hurt the ticket badly, a good one doesn't help that much.

[ZootSuitGringo]

6. I disagree.

What information do you have that allows you to make that statement. I think that VPs can make a difference. To say that a good one doesn't help much comes from what wisdom? Please provide some backround substantiating your opinion on this. Thanks.

[Silverhair]

7. It is incapable of proof. No way to run controlled tests.

That is the accepted wisdom among all political pundits.

After all, what does the VP do? In the words of "Cactus" Jack Garner, a VP for FDR, "The job isn't worth a bucket of warm piss." - unless the prez dies.

That is why a bad VP can hurt the ticket, but a good one doesn't help it much. Sometimes they will bring in their home state, but that is about it.

If you don't agree - fine. I won't try to convince you.

[ZootSuitGringo]

10. Oh no, you didn't say,

accepted wisdom among all political pundits.????

What a funny Oxymoron!

I almost choked on my pretzel at that one.

[leyton]

9. The VP has had limited importance - to reassure voters/carry a home state.

The only electorally influential VP in recent history I can think of is Lyndon Johnson, who delivered Texas's electoral votes (by a hair, IIRC) to Kennedy and thus assured him of the Presidency. Also possibly Dick Cheney, whose Washington experience probably made the inexperienced Bush slightly more palatable, bringing him within stealing distance. Mondale may have delivered Minnesota for Carter in 1976/1980 though I'm not really sure.

Bush probably helped Reagan seem competent, but things were going so badly in 1980 and Reagan's debate performance was strong enough that Reagan would have won anyway. Al Gore may have helped Clinton rack up votes in the South, so he did help the ticket, but Clinton probably would have won anyway.

The rest have had little effect, or even a detrimental one. Edwards didn't deliver the rural vote or North Carolina. Bentsen didn't deliver Texas and Lieberman didn't deliver Florida (well, he did, but not as much as he could have, and probably alienated liberals who ended up going for Nader). Ferraro didn't help Mondale. Eagleton was a disaster for McGovern.

There have been a few good VP picks who can reasonably said to have affected their running mate's chances of victory, but I think they are few and far between.

[ZootSuitGringo]

12. Let's see, you named the following as possibly helping:

you listed that
Johnson helped Kennedy
Dick Cheney helped Bush Jr.
Mondale helped Carter
Bush Sr. helped Reagan
Gore helped Clinton

When I read your post, it only illustrates that recent history does appear to shows that a Good VP pick DOES seem to help more than anything. The proof is in the pudding, as you have listed quite a few winners with good VP picks.

Who won with a bad VP pick? Only Bush Sr. in his first term. But after voters saw that Bush was just as goofy as Quayle, Bush Sr lost in his second run.

I don't think any running mate could have helped Dukakis.

PS--I personally consider Edwards as a bad VP pick, considering what the election issues were.

[Silverhair]

13. Not really.

He listed some that "may have helped" and you are pouncing on them as "did help".

In 1960, the south was still solid Democrat, and Texas was a southern state. Kenedy won by 84 electoral votes. He would have won without LBJ.

Cheney helping Bush? - Maybe. Impossible to know.

Mondale helping Carter? Carter lost.

Bush helping Reagan? Maybe, but unneeded. Reagan clobbered Carter on his own.

Gore helping Clinton? They were both from the south. Clinton would have won anyway. People were unhappy with Bush v.1

There is no case in modern times, (I don't feel like researching all the elections.) where the VP can be shown to have made a decisive positive difference.

[applegrove]

5. I agree that building up a 'SHIP OF STATE' around them is important.

I think whoever gets the nomination should immediately be seen with a big & impressive team of brilliant & tough folk (politicians, economists, intellectuals, spiritual leaders, soldiers, consumer fighters, etc.).

You can be dam sure that KR will be playing to that "SHIP of STATE" meme. And unless the Democratic leader wants to look like they are in a row-boat with a few pals instead of a ship - they have to have a visible team of close advisors and leaders who will visually say: "AIRCRAFT CARRIER 0f STATE".

[RealDems]

8. I'm starting to think

that the delegates should go back to choosing the running mate. I don't know -- but if we're talking about "giving the Party back to the people," maybe we should start letting "the people" make some decisions rather than just help run local campaign tactics. Maybe the grassroots should write the platform and select the running mate. Any thoughts?

[politicaholic]

11. That's pretty good idea...

but the VP and prez have to be able to work together. Let's say there was a Kerry/Dean ticket because of the popular grassroots vote. I'm thinking that there would have been a conflict of interest in their philosophies and thus a bad team.