In OTL 2004, John Edwards was viewed as politically inexperienced and ready to walk into the Oval Office should Kerry be unable to carry out his duties as president. Who would have been a better running mate for John Kerry? I know Kerry really had no chance in 2004 given his history and the illusion of victory in Iraq but, I'm asking out of curiosity.
Better Kerry Running Mate
- Thread starter Montgomerie Ward
- Start date
No chance? The election was exceptionally close; Kerry certainly had a chance if things had gone a bit differently (although I suspect that 04 was a poisoned chalice for anyone who did win). And, honestly, in '04 I don't think Edwards was a poor choice; he brought youth and energy to the ticket, while Kerry had the experience. This was well before the sex scandal that sank his career, and we can't let that color our views of how he was seen at the time.
As for who would be better? You would want someone who could appeal to the base and thereby further to the left than Kerry, and someone younger and a bit more charismatic. Also, you are going to want someone not from the Northeast, to help balance the ticket. I would almost say someone like Feingold would be an interesting choice (very popular with the Progressive base, his singular vote against the Patriot Act would juxtapose him against Cheney well), but I doubt he would want to give up his Senate seat. Also, I'm hardly unbiased.
So, lets look at the criteria:
1) Younger than Kerry or who can at least give off the impression of youth and vigor
2) Popular with the base of the party and probably to Kerry's left.
3) Preferably someone from the South, Rust Belt, Upper Midwest or Great Plains (I would veer away from the West Coast, since those states are solidly Democratic at not swing states. 2004, like 2000 was going to hinge on a small number of states)
Interesting thought: Harold Ford Jr. He was secure in his Congressional district in Tennessee, was viewed as a major up-and-comer in the party at the time, and definitely had ambitions for higher office. In OTL he ran for Senate in 2006 and lost narrowly. Also, being from a perceived swing state and being African-American wouldn't hurt, either.
I agree. Edwards, at the time, was an okay choice, but Gephardt would've been a better choice. A Democrat from Ohio or Florida (I can't think of anyone other than Bob Graham of Florida) might've been enough to flip either one of those states. Either way, DanMcCollum is right that 2004 was a poisoned chalice, so in hindsight, I'm glad Bush won. Kerry in 2004= a republican President in 2008.
Also, 297*, 2004 was not close either. A little over 100K votes in Ohio going over to Kerry would've given him the state, the electoral vote, and the Presidency. If there was the slightest change, Kerry might of won both the electoral vote and the popular vote. People don't realize that Bush in 2004 was just as vulnerable, if not slightly more vulnerable, than Obama in 2012.
He would have been only 34 on the hypothetical inauguration day, making him Constitutionally ineligible.
Alternatively a gubernatorial woman to really balance out Kerry, sadly there's a big dearth of them: Jeanne Shaheen would probably be ignored because two Yankee's on a ticket would be too geographically limiting.
Barbara Roberts was unpopular when she left the Oregon governorship and hadn't been in office for a decade.
Ruth Ann Minner was governor of a really small state, and Delaware isn't really seen as Southern anymore.
The four elected in 2002 and 2003 (Jennifer Granholm, Janet Napolitano, Kathleen Sebelius, and Kathleen Blanco) hadn't served long enough to be distinguished as national candidates and might invoke images of tokenism.
Sila María Calderón (Governor of Puerto Rico) would be a very interesting candidate (businesswoman, Hispanic, and a territorial resident on a ticket) but I doubt she'd be picked because of how out of left field as a candidate she'd be.
Why has no one suggested Jerry Brown?
Credential
- Former Governor of California from 1975 to 1983.
- Chairman of the California Democratic Party (1989–1991)
- Working under Governor Ronald Reagan.
- Finished 2nd in the popular vote in 1992 Democratic primaries, carrying six states, including Colorado and Nevada.
This still allows him to run again as Governor in 2011. However it does put two Catholics Yale on the ticket (but this could have been the case with Biden)
Also Brown being a bachelor doesn't give him a leg to stand on against Cheney when it comes to family valure.
Credential
- Former Governor of California from 1975 to 1983.
- Chairman of the California Democratic Party (1989–1991)
- Working under Governor Ronald Reagan.
- Finished 2nd in the popular vote in 1992 Democratic primaries, carrying six states, including Colorado and Nevada.
This still allows him to run again as Governor in 2011. However it does put two Catholics Yale on the ticket (but this could have been the case with Biden)
Also Brown being a bachelor doesn't give him a leg to stand on against Cheney when it comes to family valure.
Brown had kind of become a political joke after '95. In 2004 he was Mayor of Oakland, but as an Independent who ran against the "corrupt" Democratic Party. Running him wouldn't help in California (Just about any semi-capable Democrat was going to win that state), and would probably hurt the ticket in swing states due to his perceived weirdness.
Oh ok fair enough. Just thought it would be call to see this ticket
Of course you couldn't really know it beforehand, but all Kerry had to do to win in 2004 was to tip the scales in Ohio. I'm not sure if there are any real good candidates from Ohio to help him accomplish this. John Glenn is 83 years old in 2004, so maybe Ted Strickland?
If Kerry wins Ohio and everything else goes as historically, John Kerry is elected president.
If Kerry wins Ohio and everything else goes as historically, John Kerry is elected president.
That's essentially what I said in my post. He needed someone from Ohio, or Florida (Bob Graham?) as his VP to win. Not many people realize just how vulnerable Bush was in 2004, heck if it weren't for 9/11 and the wars, I think Bush would've suffered the same fate his father did 1992, and even with all of that he came very close to being a one termer.
Yes but George W. was pretty strong in Florida, with Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris doing his bidding there. So I honestly think Ohio is where Kerry should have won the presidency. Historically Bush won Florida by 5% (almost 400.000 votes), Ohio was much closer (just over 2%). I don't think any running mate would overcome the 5% difference combined with the Jeb/Harris machine in Florida. But the correct running mate could have switched Ohio to Kerry, if of course they had a way of knowing that's where this election was to be won.
That's the thing, I don't really know if there were, I was hoping others would know of one. Maybe Dick Gephardt would've helped in Ohio, sure he was from Missouri, but didn't he have strong ties to Unions?
Lieberman really didn't help Gore all that much in 2000, in fact it upset many liberals in the party that he was picked and he fared poorly in the debates against Dick Cheney of all people, so Liebermann arguably hurt Gore in 2000, so what would make Kerry pick him in 2004? Secondly, Liebermann supported the Iraq war, that alone disqualifies him as '04 was when the Democratic party really started to oppose the war. Also, It was after 2000 that Liebermann essentially started to become a Republican and officially left the party in 2006.