Is there ANY VP candidate that can GUARANTEE a win in ANY one state?

And if not, then shouldn't the choice reflect either broad appeal and ability to campaign or, possibly, ability to deliver votes within a region?

For instance, discussion of Bob Graham--would he really ENSURE Kerry a win in FLA? (by which this year I suppose I mean enough of an edge, over 10%, to overcome black box and voter roll chicanery) I don't know much about Graham not living in FLA or seeing him much.

Would Evan Bayh or Gephardt ensure any single win in a critical Midwestern state like MI or OH? Gephardt's dismal performance in his old stomping grounds this year makes me rather skeptical of his value as a running mate. Or would either Bayh or Gephardt provide enough of a regional "edge" in the Midwest to swing some of those states if they are razor close?

Relevant historical examples would be appreciated. Did LBJ deliver TX for JFK, or other southern states? Did Mondale deliver MN for Carter?

helps in the rest of the south as well.

-one person's opinion for what it's worth. $0.02

There's no way he guarantees either state for Kerry. In fact, Kerry was already written off both of these states.

Edwards is TREMENDOUSLY POPULAR in the Carolinas and getting more so every day!

beat Graham something like 30% to 10%. (Incidentally, he also beat Landreau in LA by a significant margin -- about 30:20 IIRC).

If Graham could help Kerry in FL, then Edwards could help more.

However, to answer this question, I think that it's hard to say.

The only politicians who could probably really get state residents excited are politicians from states in which the Dems are already strong.

Maybe 2000 is instructive. Clinton won TN, right? Well, the Gore NAME is very powerful in TN, so maybe Gore did make a difference there.

I bet there will be a future election in which Hal Ford delivers TN against odds.

But I'm not sure how many other states have the perfect storm like that -- ie, a politicians with deep roots in a state which is not already a sure winner for the party.

and I bet it's harder to find people with deep roots who are beloved in sates big enough to matter.

And ANOTHER thing: you can't be depriving the party of politician who is needed in the roll they're already in. Which makes it harder to pick Democratic senators this year, and makes it hard to take Dem governors from states that aren't already in the Dem's pocket.

whole VP choice on turning ONE critical swing state, it better be one FAT with electoral votes that really matter. The really fat ones I guess would be FLA, OH, PA.

NC is a good size but is it really "swing" for us this time?

Clinton came pretty close both times. But Edwards wouldn't help us much there. He is not universally liked.

...I step back from that statement.

... because electoral votes were redistributed after the 2000 Census:

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/map/

in this election. Even New Hampshire.

I am so SICK of the "your vote don't matter" people. SICK SICK SICK of it!!!

Every vote matters. Every person matters. Every state matters. It's going to take ALL of us.

Before I begin, John Edwards would not necessarily carry NC. There are a lot of people in both parties who are upset with him for running for President four years into his first term in elected office.

Who would carry their states:

Breaux would carry Louisiana, I think, and I bet Warner might bring us Virginia (not sure though). Obviously McCain would carry Arizona (and possibly hand us the Senate with his resignation). Dick Durbin would probably carry Iowa. I don't know how much effect these guys would have on the surrounding states though.

Somewhere I read - probably on DU, heheh - that no VP candidate since LBJ has had a measurable effect geographywise outside his or her own state. So I don't know if we should count on anyone to carry Ohio or Pennsylvania or South Carolina just because they live next door.

doesn't carry Indiana.

Folks like him here and will keep voting for him (indeed the GOP is barely running an opposition candidate against him).

But folks here REALLY like Bush - who keeps coming back, as does cheney, to raise big bucks for "My Man Mitch" Daniels who is running for Governor. Always tons of people and big bucks raised.

Bayh adds nothing (in terms of electoral votes) to the ticket.

hehe. :) Gov. Villsack would, however, but I still think there's regional balance needed.

LBJ campaigned in Texas and the South and is generally credited with delivering Texas and several other Southern states. I think the choice was a hard-boiled one that helped win the election.

The only Southern states that Kerry is even within striking distance are Arkansas and Florida, and I don't think there's a VP choice that could guarantee either.

I think Glenn would carry Ohio (we are close as it is and he would make the difference). Sadly we have no one here who I can say would do that now. I think Kerry is better off with either a Governor to balance him on experience or a bold choice such as a woamn, hispanic or black.

I feel pretty good about Kerry's chances in New Mexico if Bill Richardson is on the ticket.

I don't buy the arguments that Dick Gephardt could delivery Missouri for Kerry. Gephardt has never run state-wide. He might be able to help at the margins, but I doubt whether Kerry could remain competitive enough in Missouri for that to make a difference.

Same for Florida. Picking Graham or Nelson might keep things close, but in the end, I just don't think Kerry is going to be able to carry Florida.

dislike Richardson, myself included.

They're clannish in Arkansas and love a hometown hero. Clark might just be able to put Arkansas firmly in Kerry's territory with little money expended.

Lieberman might be able to help in Florida (although I am starting to think we should can trying to win Florida and try to win Nevada, Ohio and New Hampshire instead). Gephardt might help in Ohio, as might any other candidate strongly backed by the unions and/or moderate enough to appeal to their sometimes conservative memebership (Bayh, Landrieu, Lieberman, and maybe Edwards) are moderate enough for that.

Generally, I think favored sons/daughters are a thing of the past. The best candidate is one who can help a little bit in 5 or 6 close states. Like it or not, Lieberman did help in Florida and Pennsylvania the last time--which is why he was a good pick.

had Kerry within 2 points of Bush in that state.

The state also has a massive unemployment problem.

Clark could put him over the top there.

He's just fading away.

and also Edwards supporters.....

would win it for Kerry here...

Richardson could bring in NM and Vilsack IA, but I bet we win those anyway.

He can't bring anything new to the table.

such as Clark.

I do think a Kerry/Clark ticket would bring in Arizona, Arkansas, New Mexico and Louisiana. This is obviously the best ticket. BTW, I like John Edwards, but I don't think he's the right choice for vp.

would also add West Virginia.

They are natural Dems, & nothing is more important than the military.

I feel OK about Hillary but I don't know of a single person that would vote for her in NC or SC!

and the idea that any one person could win a state is absurd.

There are people who could help.... but not to the great extent so many on DU imagine.

Nobody can GUARANTEE anything, but Arkansas is close in the last two polls; 2 points and flat tied--plenty close enough for Clark to carry. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry_sbys.html#ar)

So he can deliver his home state, which unfortunately neither Edwards nor Evan Bayh can. (NC and IND are dead-red states right now)

If Gephradt guarantees MO then that's cool. I doubt he does, though --too complex a State for guarantees.

We need Arkansas and New Hampshire and Florida because we may lose PA and Oregon makes me nervous because of Nader.