Kerry's VP pick doesn't lead to bounce in Michigan poll

BenReilly · Jul 10, 2004

U.S. Sen. John Kerry's selection of fellow senator John Edwards as his running mate has not given the Democratic ticket a big bounce in Michigan, a new poll shows.

Forty-seven percent of the 600 likely Michigan voters polled by Lansing-based EPIC/MRA said they would vote for Kerry/Edwards if the election were held today. Forty-four percent said they backed President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.
Click to expand...

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/politics/9125056.htm

Silvio Dante · Jul 10, 2004

47-44% for Kerry will do for me everytime...

BenReilly · Jul 10, 2004

February 07, 2004

New York Times

In late December, when his campaign was still on life support, a subdued and introspective John Kerry unwound on his bus in Iowa and spoke candidly about the race he was in, and what it might look like if he were not.

Whom would he support? he was asked.

"Gephardt," Mr. Kerry said, without hesitation.

On Friday, Mr. Gephardt repaid the compliment. In a banquet hall outside Detroit filled with teachers and union plumbers and motorcyclists and veterans, Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri stood next to Senator Kerry of Massachusetts and pronounced him the Democrats' best hope in November.

"I'm here today adding my voice to all of yours," said Mr. Gephardt, who left the race after placing a distant fourth in the Iowa caucuses. "I've known and worked with John Kerry for a long time. And when you campaign with and against someone you even learn more about him. We want and need this man to be the next president of the United States."
Click to expand...

tcmahoney · Jul 10, 2004

https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showpost.php?p=2128516&postcount=62

Take your own advice, little boy.

BenReilly · Jul 10, 2004

tcmahoney said:

https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showpost.php?p=2128516&postcount=62

Take your own advice, little boy.
Click to expand...

I'm a hypocrite, and proud of it!

p.s. There were some Republicans that criticized Bush I for picking Dan Quayle.

BenReilly · Jul 10, 2004

Is Kerry Ready to Flip-Flop on Edwards Yet?

"Is Kerry Ready to Flip-Flop on Edwards Yet?"

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=4443

Barbara · Jul 10, 2004

BenReilly said:

I'm a hypocrite, and proud of it!

p.s. There were some Republicans that criticized Bush I for picking Dan Quayle.
Click to expand...

Are you equating Quayle and Edwards?

superdave · Jul 10, 2004

Gephardt is a Dick. His fans love Dick.

nicephoras · Jul 10, 2004

No no - Ben has a point. Its clear that choosing a Southern Senator as your VP is a bad choice when you don't get a bounce in a northern state which you were already winning. If Kerry didn't get a bounce in Massachusets from choosing Edwards, we know he's sunk!

BenReilly · Jul 10, 2004

nicephoras said:

No no - Ben has a point. Its clear that choosing a Southern Senator as your VP is a bad choice when you don't get a bounce in a northern state which you were already winning.
Click to expand...

Ridiculous post, seriously. Kerry is barely winning Michigan and the Midwest/rustbelt will laregely decide the election.

BenReilly · Jul 10, 2004

BarbDett said:

Are you equating Quayle and Edwards?
Click to expand...

Given that Quayle had far more experience, especially in foreign policy, I may have been a tad unfair.

BenReilly · Jul 10, 2004

superdave said:

Gephardt is a Dick. His fans love Dick.
Click to expand...

You left out that part where Gephardt sucks...

nicephoras · Jul 10, 2004

BenReilly said:

Ridiculous post, seriously.
Click to expand...

After the last week, you no longer have the credibility to say that. Seriously.

BenReilly said:

Kerry is barely winning Michigan and the Midwest/rustbelt will laregely decide the election.
Click to expand...

But why would you expect a Southern Senator's appointment as a VP to lead to a bounce in Michigan immediately? Seriously?

nicephoras · Jul 10, 2004

BenReilly said:

Ridiculous post, seriously. Kerry is barely winning Michigan and the Midwest/rustbelt will laregely decide the election.
Click to expand...

BenReilly said:

Given that Quayle had far more experience, especially in foreign policy, I may have been a tad unfair.
Click to expand...

BenReilly said:

Ridiculous post, seriously.
Click to expand...

My work here is done.

slipnslide · Jul 10, 2004

I'm pretty sure that the candidate who wins the south usually wins the election. Anyone else heard something like this?

Barbara · Jul 10, 2004

BenReilly said:

Given that Quayle had far more experience, especially in foreign policy, I may have been a tad unfair.
Click to expand...

He was also a pinhead. By all accounts, Edwards isn't.

superdave · Jul 10, 2004

BenReilly said:

You left out that part where Gephardt sucks...
Click to expand...

No, his fans suck. That's how you love a Dick, you suck.

bigredfutbol · Jul 10, 2004

slipnslide said:

I'm pretty sure that the candidate who wins the south usually wins the election. Anyone else heard something like this?
Click to expand...

No. The south is pretty solidly Republican. The idea with Edwards is that he might help the ticket put a dent in the R's hold on the South--there are a few states where the D's are still competitive.

BenReilly · Jul 10, 2004

nicephoras said:

After the last week, you no longer have the credibility to say that. Seriously.
Click to expand...

The difference is that my ridiculous posts are by design Seriously, Kerry/Edwards are not entitled to my undivided loyalty. I've never been one of the knee-jerk Bush haters.

But why would you expect a Southern Senator's appointment as a VP to lead to a bounce in Michigan immediately? Seriously?
Click to expand...

Because if you actually knew anything about this, you would discover that VP picks usually result in significant national increases in poll ratings. Michigan is a key battleground state so the polling results (and nifty headline) there are especially significant.

nicephoras · Jul 10, 2004

slipnslide said:

I'm pretty sure that the candidate who wins the south usually wins the election. Anyone else heard something like this?
Click to expand...

Well, that's a bit of a misleading statement, since most Presidential elections aren't that close. I.e. - candidates who win a lot of states inevitably win in the South. It is as possible to win without the South as it is without the NorthEast, say. Gore practically did it in 2000.
The other point, of course, is that this puts some Southern states in play, forcing Bush to spend money and time there.

BenReilly · Jul 10, 2004

nicephoras said:

My work here is done.
Click to expand...

And you get an incomplete.

BenReilly · Jul 10, 2004

BarbDett said:

He was also a pinhead. By all accounts, Edwards isn't.
Click to expand...

Actually, that's not true. He got off to a bad start and the media mercilessly pounced on him.

nicephoras · Jul 10, 2004

BenReilly said:

The difference is that my ridiculous posts are by design
Click to expand...

Its getting hard to notice the difference. Seriously.

BenReilly said:

Seriously, Kerry/Edwards are not entitled to my undivided loyalty. I've never been one of the knee-jerk Bush haters.
Click to expand...

Undivided loyalty isn't the point. Your bizarre obsession with Dick Gephard and anyone who has in some way "wronged him" is.

BenReilly said:

Because if you actually knew anything about this,
Click to expand...

BenReilly said:

you would discover that VP picks usually result in significant national increases in poll ratings.
Click to expand...

Yes, but considering how polarized the nation is now, and considering that we've been seeing wildly different results in polls, this doesn't surprise me in the slightest.
Btw, did you note national in your own post? Is Michigan a nation now?

BenReilly said:

Michigan is a key battleground state so the polling results (and nifty headline) there are especially significant.
Click to expand...

Yes, but again - I wouldn't expect Edwards to have much of an effect there, just like I don't expect a boost from his appointment in California.
On a national level it might, because people in, oh, I don't know, the South, might be affected by this.
If you actually knew anything about this.

nicephoras · Jul 10, 2004

BenReilly said:

Actually, that's not true. He got off to a bad start and the media mercilessly pounced on him.
Click to expand...

You are not the media Ben. Neither is Ian. He's doing fine.

BenReilly · Jul 10, 2004

nicephoras said:

Undivided loyalty isn't the point. Your bizarre obsession with Dick Gephard and anyone who has in some way "wronged him" is.
Click to expand...

Gephardt represents the wing of the Democrat party that I support and the type of leader that should represent the United States. And, yes, there was a concerted "stop Gephardt" campaign, though I haven't really discussed this here.

Yes, but considering how polarized the nation is now, and considering that we've been seeing wildly different results in polls, this doesn't surprise me in the slightest.
Btw, did you note national in your own post? Is Michigan a nation now?
Click to expand...

You might have a point if Kerry's goal was to increase his poll ratings only in states where he's hopelessly behind or has in the bag. However, VP announcements usually result in large increases throughout the nation, which Michigan is a part. It's a key battleground state.

Yes, but again - I wouldn't expect Edwards to have much of an effect there, just like I don't expect a boost from his appointment in California.
On a national level it might, because people in, oh, I don't know, the South, might be affected by this.
If you actually knew anything about this.
Click to expand...

If the goal was merely to help in the South, Kerry's choice was exceptionally moronic.
Click to expand...