Which region should Kerry's VP come from?

Everyone has been talking about Kerry's running mate options - some are saying they hope he/she's from the midwest to get rust belt states, or the south if there's a possibility it will help with states like Georgia, or maybe the Northeast - someone like Dean or Hillary Clinton who is similar to Kerry. I didn't put the West in my poll because I haven't heard people mention anyone from out there as a choice. I guess it can be included in other, along with Alaska and Hawaii (what region are they considered to be in?). So, where do you think our VP candidate should hail from (like we really have a say in this, heh, heh).

I don't know ANYONE who votes for a presidential candidate because his VP does or does not come from a particular region.

I don't think the region is very important, but it has some influence. A Democratic candidate from Texas would freak people out for instance. Personally, I think a midwestern candidate would be cool because he'll know the area and have invested interest here. He can bring national attention to our issues.

based on where his VP is from? I don't. As we all know, VPs almost NEVER decide the election. They usually don't help or hurt the candidate. IMO, where they are from will have absolutely NO effect on the vote. We need to concentrate on the best person for the job, not where they are from.

If you don't like it, you don't have to participate. Of course I know people won't vote on region alone. This is just for fun! Not going to argue about it, sheesh.

They agree with Bush on some issues and they agree with Kerry on others. I think if there were state politician on Kerry's ticket some of those undecided would go for Kerry. The keyword however, is POPULAR. Somebody who wins elections by just a fringe would not bring swing voters to the ticket.

I know people who are right in the middle. Every little thing matters - these people make comments like "If Kerry did x, I may look at him more," or "If Kerry puts x on the ticket, he doesn't get my vote." Especially in swing states that are full of these people, VP matters. I'm on the Kerry bandwagon, but I'm not holding on that tightly. If Kerry would put someone on like Bayh who is too far right, I probably will reconsider my Kerry support because that choice tells me where his priorities are. I would only vote for a ticket w/a Republican lite if that persom was strong on the trade/job issues. If he doesn't pick someone who is strong on these issues, he'll lose many votes. A lot of people don't trust that he'll be any better for the economy than Bush because he himself is not strong on these issues, so there's no point. I'm taking a chance on Kerry, but many won't. Having a running mate who is strong on trade will at least sway some people toward him. Especially union people, manufacturing people, working class - you get the picture.

Here's my dark horse prediction: Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana. Political pedigree (father was mayor of New Orleans Moon Landrieu), a woman, from a Southern state that can vote Democratic occasionally, and (something you don't hear much about) a great public speaker.

jarab -DU moderator

How can you not have the Southwest listed? New Mexico, Arizona, these are pretty important states and probably the key to the 04 election.

Bill Richardson, governor of New Mexico and former energy secretary. ALso, Bruce Babbitt, former governor of Arizona and former Interior Secretary. These guys would make great VP choices. Telegenic, moderate, and almost a lock to win their home state.

I don't think so. Look at their electoral votes.

I know it's only 15 in the aggregate, but NM and AZ are 2 of the true swing states in this election. Florida and Minnesota, and arguably Pennsylvania and Ohio, are others.

We're only looking at a few EVs necessary to win.

Nevada and maybe Colorado

I think you have to go for the most EVs. That means Rendell. You can't let Bush take PA.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

but a Pennsylvanian Dem sounds good to me. PA is one we need, and guaranteed he'll lose Ohio and Wisconsin if he loses it.

I don't have a strong preference regarding the VP slot and his/her location, though I think a midwesterner or southerner would be nice. Is there a website for Rendall, Landrieu (sp?), Bayh and some of the other less known of ones that show where they stand on the issues? (Not personal websites, but a site for all the possible veeps). I'll have to do some searching around...

Don't know why rich republicans call Dems 'elitists' but they do and the public has had a lot of conditioning along that line. Need a balance to the chic east coast look of Kerry to campaign in the west and rural areas of the country. And we need to NOT write off the rural areas as there is considerable discontent with bushco and not all of the rural population are xtian fundie types.

France. He comes from France.

I know that we keep thinking about blue and red. That may be reality but I can dream can't I?

I want this nation to realize that in 2004 we have the guts to believe that it is important for a person to have a working knowledge of more than one region.

I happen to believe that Wes Clark would and should have appeal in all regions because he has a broad understanding of the WORLD. I also see him as compassionate about issues that represent everyone.

It would be a bold step for Kerry to pick a VP for all SEASONS and for all of the REGIONS - WES CLARK!

Bill Richardson

I would like any of the following: Dean, Clark, Edwards, Graham, Breaux, Richardson, Bayh,

but not Rendell, we need a Democratic governor in PA.

Wes Clark or Bill Richardson

Go John John!

Clark, Edwards or Richardson would be my picks. Of course all are saying "No." I say Clark for Sec of State which leaves Edwards or Richardson.

If Kerry loses in 2004, it won't be because of his VP pick (unless it is a particularly stupid one).

So, why not get creative in his choice?

If VP Geography matters, and that's open to some debate, then Kerry should look to the future of the big blue D where it matters the most - the Southwest.

The area is primed for population growth, which means an opportunity for a new gold rush, with votes playing the role of gold, and the Dems playing the role of the miner/49ers.

Add to that the the type of population growth we're looking at is overwhelmingly Hispanic, and you double the reasons for wanting to cement a Dem presense in the Southwest.

The Republicans will fight tooth and nail for the Hispanic vote, trying to convince them that they belong with the Repukes over issues like "family values" etc. We must NOT let them define this debate.

The first minority figure in the Executive office (POTUS or VP) should be a Democrat. The first female should be a Democrat.

If you're looking for that candidate, look to the Southwest, that's where the talent is being developed.

The Repukes do NOT deserve that honor, but they WILL try to usurp it, and make a grab for those votes that will affect American politics for a generation or more.

It's simple enough us to do it now. An Hispanic from the SouthWest would pull votes from at least 4 Red States from 2000. It may not make or break the election, but it will set precident.

The west also has the most "Goldwater Republicans" who are more likely to cross over and vote for a favored son. I think AR, NM, CO, NV, and MT could be up for grabs if the right VP choice is made.

I think that Dems could do well in Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada and Colorado.

I say this rather sadly since I really like Howard Dean but we need someone from another part of the country who won't be tagged as a northeastern liberal. We need someone who's been critical of the Iraq war from the get go and who has the right mix of foreign policy and domestic expertise to act as the designated attack dog to counter Dick Cheney.

Anywhere by the Northeast.

Overall, geography doesn't matter much. It's much more important that Kerry's running mate be someone who brings stength to the areas in which he is perceived as weak. Someone who reinforces the message and image that Kerry want to present to the electorate. And someone who can handle the "attack dog" role, assuming that's one that Kerry wants to assign.

If there were a single large swing state that one of the specific VP possibles could be almost guaranteed to deliver, it might be different. But there isn't. Edwards can't bring in NC, Graham can't guarantee FL, and Gephardt can't deliver MO. NM is already blue and AR isn't big enough to matter by itself. So for all intents, geography is irrelevant.

The one exception is the Northeast. Whether it's fair or not, Kerry already has to overcome the hurdle of being labeled a "Massachusetts liberal"--he cannot afford to choose a running mate who will be perceived to be the same. It knocks out some good people, but that's just the way it is.

that's where Edwards and Clark are from.

However, things aren't equal, so we have to pick the candidate that gives us the most EVs, period. We could win without winning a single southern state, for instance. In addition, opening big leads in light blue states helps us campaign elsewhere.

Therefore it depends on the individual pick.

Hmmmm, Who do we know from there?