Daily Kos

CNN: Edwards is Top VP Choice For Kerry

by Philosopher

Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 05:46:55 PM PDT

Here's the link, from the front page of CNN.com:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/29/poll.veep/index.html

Apparently a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll asked voters for their reactions to several potential VP candidates -- Edwards, Gephardt, Clark, Vilsak, and Bayh.

Edwards got the best response -- 72 percent said that they would be enthusiastic or satisfied with an Edwards pick.  Gephardt was a distant second, and the rest were further behind.  Here's the exact breakdown:

JOHN EDWARDS
Enthusiastic: 24%
Satisfied: 48%
Dissatisfied: 19%
Angry: 3%
No Opinion: 6%

DICK GEPHARDT
Enthusiastic: 15%
Satisfied: 49%
Dissatisfied: 27%
Angry: 4%
No Opinion: 5%

WESLEY CLARK
Enthusiastic: 15%
Satisfied: 44%
Dissatisfied: 32%
Angry: 4%
No Opinion: 5%

EVAN BAYH
Enthusiastic: 9%
Satisfied: 49%
Dissatisfied: 30%
Angry: 2%
No Opinion: 10%

TOM VILSAK
Enthusiastic: 3%
Satisfied: 51%
Dissatisfied: 33%
Angry: 2%
No Opinion: 11%

What does everyone make of this?  Personally, I think that if Kerry doesn't choose Edwards, he'll pick someone who isn't on this list -- a real out-of-left-field choice like Sam Nunn.  (Hopefully not Nunn ... ugh.)  I was surprised by how well Gephardt did, though.  Apparently he has a lot of silent supporters out there.

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 32 comments

  •  VP (none / 0)

    While I think Edwards is the best choice, I don't think a poll like this tells us much.  People don't usually know much about the VP nominee until the selection is made and the media coverage "informs" the public about the choice.  People then decide whether they like him or not.  

    by danielj on Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 05:59:29 PM PDT

    •  Good Point (none / 0)

      Good point, although in this poll, they "attempted to compensate for the higher visibility of some of the men by reading respondents a description of each man's experience and background."

      I think the "dissatisfied" results are more interesting than the "satisfied" results ... most people who dislike one of these guys from the start probably won't start to like them as they learn more, although I could be wrong about that.  I tend to think that voters who aren't familiar with a VP choice start out with no opinion or a mildly positive opinion of someone they don't know, and that someone who is "dissatified" already knows what they need to know about a candidate.

      by Philosopher on Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 06:02:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I've asked before...Bill Bradley? (none / 0)

    Unless someone can tell me a big reason no, I think he could be really good.

    -Would help in the NJ/Philly corridor
    -Moderate image, challenged Gore
    -Endorsed Dean

    Bill Bradley WaPo Story 1999

    Well?

    by zed on Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 05:59:52 PM PDT

  •  Poll includes Democrats AND Republicans (none / 0)

    Which is either a good thing or a bad thing.  Good in that Edwards has much higher support amongst Republican voters (62%) than any other candidate (Bayh is second with 57%).  But you also wonder whether many Republicans are choosing the guy they think they have the best chance of beating (Gephardt).  I know if I was asked to pick Bush's VP, I'd pick a boring Dennis Hastert type over some fresh exciting type.  

    Too bad CNN doesn't release the full results, to see how this broke down over party lines.  It does say that Edwards received high marks from 80% of Democrats.  And clearly Edwards' "enthusiastic" numbers blow away everyone else's.

    Old Man McCain.com - the best anti-McCain blog on the web!

    by existenz on Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 05:59:55 PM PDT

  •  dog bites man (none / 1)

    BREAKING NEWS: Candidate with best name recognition scores well ahead of candidates no one has ever heard of.

    I guarentee you that if Kerry started floating Britney Spears as a running mate, she would receive the highest ratings of anyone.  This poll tests name recognition; it does not test the most important skill of any Vice-President: the ability to take over the nation during a time of greatest crisis.

    Ebo, who enjoys using both a semi-colon and a colon in the same sentence.

    by captainebo on Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 06:01:21 PM PDT

    •  And it's Drudge... (none / 1)

      ...that's been touting the Edwards name the most. He's setting Kerry up.

      -fink

      Al Gore didn't lose in 2000. America did.

      by fink on Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 06:05:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You really believe that? (none / 0)

        So many Democrats of all stripes have said that Edwards is the best choice, but you think that the way we can tell this is a "setup" is because Drudge prints stories on the subject?

        What kind of a "setup" would this be anyway? A setup that causes Kerry to choose the best VP candidate (by far) among those he is considering?

        by JamesB3 on Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 06:19:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Just in case (none / 0)

          If someone burps and it sounds like "Edwards", Drudge is on the case. For the Rove tool he is, why else would he devote so much attention to Edwards. Think from their side for a sec. If Kerry doesn't pick Edwards, the press will report "Kerry surprised Edwards supporters with..."

          I'm not paranoid. I'm just trying to play it from their side.

          -fink

          Al Gore didn't lose in 2000. America did.

          by fink on Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 07:07:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks for the tip (none / 0)

        Hell, it was even working on me and I'm fairly astute.

        John McCain would rather lose his integrity than lose an election.

        by PrometheusSpeaks on Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 06:53:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  All I hear is that Kerry isn't (none / 1)

    trouncing GWB at this point because not enough people know him yet.  If they don't know Kerry, they are clueless on the offered VP choices.  This is a meaningless poll.

    What FDR giveth; GWB taketh away.

    by Marie on Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 06:11:40 PM PDT

    •  It's "clueless" (none / 0)

      I guess because Marie doesn't like the results.  But those polls in November showing Dean as the next Democratic nominee?  Those were damn good polls!

      "Man is free at the moment he wishes to be." - Voltaire

      by DrFrankLives on Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 07:54:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  There you go again -- ASSuming (none / 0)

        It's not the results I was critiquing but the polling.
        steve4clark and chikpatty have detailed other obvious problems with this poll.

        The primary criteria for Kerry is that he and his running mate make for a good team and that means that they must be comfortable with each other.  Each of us can point out the generic electoral advantages/disadvantages of a number of candidates, but only Kerry can make that personal assessment.  (btw - I'm indifferent to a choice between Edwards or Gephardt.  On balance would expect Kerry to run eaqually with these two.  I expect it to be Gep for a number of reasons.)

        (and would you please get on my case -- it's really annoying.)  

        What FDR giveth; GWB taketh away.

        by Marie on Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 10:37:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Edwards is (none / 0)

    the only choice afaic.  As a good southerner I have a hard time voting for a yankee (either one), so Edwards appeals on that count.  He is also much better looking than Kerry or Dick Cheney, which isn't supposed to matter in this day of women's lib, but it does.
    He is an excellent lawyer ( i know, that's really a point against him) and very smart - he has a good grasp of the economic problems, and seems OK on foreign issues - I'm sure he knows his Greeks from his Grecians any day.
    Plus, people recognize him, and according to the polls seem to like him.  What more does Kerry need?

    gig 'em Ags

    by justa grata honoria on Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 06:21:25 PM PDT

  •  You may be right... (4.00 / 2)

    Personally, I think that if Kerry doesn't choose Edwards, he'll pick someone who isn't on this list

    Like Howard Dean!

    Don't like XOM and OPEC? What have YOU done to reduce your oil consumption? Hot air does NOT constitute a renewable resource!

    by Asak on Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 06:38:26 PM PDT

  •  it has to be Edwards (none / 0)

    I said very early on that Kerry will either go for a minimalist choice--a Gephardt or Vilsack--or would pick Edwards, because he would be forced to.  I'm still thinking that the best play might be to get somebody out of left field and really exciting--A Landrieu would be my pick were I an advisor--but Kerry's not really the type.

    If it truly is between Edwards and Gephardt, a big if, it would have to be Edwards at this point.  Picking Gephardt now would be wonky.  Three months ago I said Gephardt made a lot of sense.  But, Kerry's campaign is ALREADY so minimalist, that it would really sink a prime opportunity, at this point.

    Look at it this way.  If Kerry picked Edwards, the entire American media would say "Kerry Picks Edwards!"  If Kerry picked Gephardt, the entire American media would say "Why Didn't Kerry Pick Edwards?"  Kerry doesn't want to set himself up for that, when the election could really hinge on two weeks of really positive coverage at a crucial time when voters are starting to get to know him.    The VP pick is the first true introduction to the challenger in the season; it would be unwise to start it off by having the entire nation second-guess you.    

    My guess is that Kerry is really personally pushing for Gep, but everybody around him right now is screaming Edwards.  Or, as has been said, it's some completely out of the blue person that either we haven't thought of yet, or that we had written off a long time ago.  The way the leaks have been going though, I think it may be between Gep and Edwards now.  Kerry would, at this point, be a fool to dash everybody with Gephardt.  

    This is coming from a guy that likes Gephardt (though Edwards was my first choice in the primary).  

    What's the difference between Iraq and Vietnam? Bush knew how to get out of Vietnam.

    by glibfidget on Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 06:40:05 PM PDT

  •  72% to 64% (none / 0)

    I shudder at the idea of Gephardt, but 64% is a "distant second" to Edwards's 72%?

    I got my hopes all up before I did the math. When I think "distant second," I think, at least, double digits.

    No matter. It cannot and must not and will not be Gephardt.

    I have spoken.

    -9.63, -7.03 Rage, rage against the Lying of the Right

    by Maryscott OConnor on Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 06:40:57 PM PDT

  •  left field (none / 0)

    On a related note, I have a friend that swears it's going to be Eliot Spitzer, the Attorney General of NY.  His words:

    [quote]
    Would HURT Bush on his economic record.  Big, bold, sweeping contrast between the candidates that hits the Republicans where it hurts.  Startling nasty wedge issue.  Big win for the Dems.

    Downsides:  two northeastern liberals, and the possibility that Spitzler will go off on mouth-frothing tirades when placed anywhere near a mic.[/quote]

    I could get down with that.  

    What's the difference between Iraq and Vietnam? Bush knew how to get out of Vietnam.

    by glibfidget on Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 06:55:57 PM PDT

    •  Spitzer is up and coming... (none / 0)

      ...but I don't think he's ready for the national set yet. He's got his eyes on Pataki. He's all but said it aloud.

      -fink

      Al Gore didn't lose in 2000. America did.

      by fink on Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 07:10:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  spitzer (none / 0)

      Spitzer has his eye on the NY governor's mansion. He's not quite ready for the WH.

      Whoever your friend is, though, doesn't seem to know Spitzer well. He's definitely not the mouth-frothing type. He's very professional and sharp. Wasn't he a big wall-street player before he took up the NY AG spot?

      "We're borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet." Al Gore

      by jd in nyc on Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 09:10:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I think he should pick that Rubin guy (none / 0)

    Rick?  Is that his name?  Not the dude who produced all those awesome Johnny Cash records, the supply-side economist that Clinton fellated on a nightly basis.

    I don't like Rubin, but I think it would cripple the hell out of Bush.  Kerry would have someone who was roundly considered the smartest econmist in the world.

    In fact, I bet it will be Rubin, if he is willing to take the job.

    by Chik Patty on Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 06:59:59 PM PDT

  •  Analysis.... (none / 0)

    Since the poll talked to everybody, it is difficult to really says what it means.

    As a committed Republican, what do you say about someone you think is going to be a strong VP for Kerry?

  • You are enthusiastic because it means you might feel more inclined to vote for Kerry.  

  • You are satisfied because you are level headed.  

  • You are dissatisfied because the last thing you want is a strong VP.

    Similarly speaking, as a committed Republican, what do you say about someone you think is going to be a weak VP for Kerry?

  • You are enthusiastic because you want Kerry to pick him so you can shoot him down

  • You are satisfied because you think if Kerry picks you you can shoot him down easily

  • You are dissatisfied because as a level-headed American you don't want to see a weak VP, should Kerry win the election.

    Then you have another question.  Of committed Democrats, what are their real feelings?  Does being dissatisfied mean you won't vote for the ticket?  Or does it just mean you are afraid that if you say you are satisfied with that choice, they won't pick the guy you really want?

    I feel the poll is meaningless.  The only people guaranteed to be telling you the full truth are marked 'No opinion'.

(0.00,-3.13) "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."

by Steve4Clark on Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 07:02:10 PM PDT

Permalink | 32 comments