I still have some mixed feelings about John Edwards on the Dem ticket, but it’s interesting to see that a number of Senate Dems are stepping up to boost his prospects.
As The Hill reported today:
“Why not John Edwards?” asked Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), when asked about the party’s vice presidential nominee. “He’s done a great job. [He] campaigned across the country. He has a good relationship with Kerry. He can appeal to border states.”
Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-S.C.) concurred: “He’d be good on the ticket, particularly in South Carolina.” It will be tough for Democrats to carry South Carolina, Hollings conceded, but Edwards “could carry it as good as anybody.
“He’s made a name for himself; there isn’t any question about that. He could go in private practice or be in the Cabinet in some important post.”
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) said: “I think Edwards would be an important asset in a Cabinet post. He’s got a winning way. John Edwards left with such class and such a positive aura that I think he’s good for us.”
Each of these three may have some influence with Kerry after having served with him for many years. We’ll see if this encouragement has an effect.
And speaking of VP speculation, I’ve noticed that a few outlets have done some polls on this. This strikes me as a little silly.
The University of Connecticut conducted a national poll about a month ago, asking Dem respondents to choose a running mate among Wesley Clark, Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, John Edwards, Dick Gephardt, and Joseph Lieberman. Edwards garnered the most support, with 34%. Hillary was second, Clark third.
Fox News asked a similar question about a week later, asking people to choose among Clark, Clinton, Edwards, Gephardt, and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson. Again, Edwards was the clear favorite.
Yet another poll, the CNN-USA Today-Gallup survey released late yesterday, also asked about Kerry’s running mate, offering about a dozen possibilities to choose from. While most were in single digits, Edwards had the support of 30% of nationwide Dems.
What does all of this mean? Frankly, not a whole lot. Most Dems engaged with the campaign so far have seen Edwards far more than anyone else and heard more about a potential Kerry-Edwards ticket than any other potential combination. It’s only natural that he’d be the favorite in these polls. Indeed, a lot of people probably didn’t even recognize some of the choices from the Gallup survey. Bill Richardson, for example, is well-known among engaged Dems, but to most people, he’s a stranger.
This probably won’t have much of an influence in the outcome. In recent election cycles, nominees have made many unpredictable selections, choosing running mates that had little, if any, poll support. I can’t find any data from the time, but I don’t recall a single poll even asking Republicans if they thought Dick Cheney would make a good running mate for Bush. Likewise, Joe Lieberman wasn’t a particularly popular choice for Al Gore, before or after he was selected.
2000 was not an aberration. When Bush tapped Quayle in ’88, it was an out-of-the-blue choice. Same for Dole choosing Kemp, Dukakis picking Bentsen, Mondale selecting Ferraro, and so on.
These polls are mildly interesting in that they show how well Edwards did in generating support for his efforts, despite failing at the ballot box. But I hardly think polls showing him as the leading VP pick are going to matter in the end.