Posted on 10/21/2003 6:30:23 AM PDT by NYC Republican
With the strongest union backing and deepest roots in the politically important industrial Midwest, Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.) is emerging as the Democratic presidential candidate many prominent Republicans fear the most in the 2004 elections.
In interviews with nearly two dozen Republican strategists, lawmakers and state chairmen across the country, including several close to the White House, Gephardt was portrayed by a majority as the Democratic candidate best prepared and positioned to defeat President Bush in a head-to-head matchup next year. The reasons, they said: Gephardt consistently supported the Iraq war, enjoys unrivaled support among union leaders and hails from the Midwest, where many Republicans believe the presidential election will be decided. They also cited his health care plan, experience and discipline as key factors.
"When [we] look at the whole picture and who can get [Democrats] there . . . people are saying Gephardt is the biggest threat," said Rep. Mike Rogers (Mich.), finance chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee.
A few mentioned retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark as a potentially strong challenger, but every Republican predicted Bush would win reelection. Still, their views about Gephardt (and some of his rivals) highlight the GOP's top concerns heading into 2004: job losses in key swing states, the high number of uninsured workers, the fallout from Bush's steel tariffs and the president's political standing in the industrial Midwest. With his plan to lower the cost of health care for most Americans, "Gephardt has hit on a real Achilles' heel, and he will get traction on it if he becomes the nominee," said Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.).
By historical standards, Bush remains popular with voters more than a year out from the election and gets high marks for integrity and strong leadership skills. At the same time, polls show Gephardt, Clark, former Vermont governor Howard Dean and Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), among others, being competitive in matchups with the president.
Many Democrats do not agree with the GOP assessment of Gephardt's electability. The AFL-CIO has declined to endorse the Missouri lawmaker, despite his relentless courting, because several union leaders are not convinced Gephardt can win. In recent interviews in New Hampshire and Iowa, the two key early voting states, numerous Democratic voters have characterized Gephardt as stale, programmed and too closely affiliated with Washington. In Iowa, where Gephardt spends most of his time campaigning, Dean is doing as well or better in recent polls.
Bill McInturff, a GOP pollster, said he thinks Gephardt would be a weak candidate because he has called for a repeal of the Bush tax cuts. And Frank Luntz, a former GOP pollster who has conducted focus groups for MSNBC, said Gephardt "falls absolutely flat" with voters because he is seen as too political.
One of the main reasons many other Republicans fret about Gephardt is the electoral map, which many in the GOP say points to the Midwest as the region that will decide the presidency.
Several senior Bush administration officials consider Gephardt, a family man of humble origins in Missouri, the most serious threat because he "matches up better culturally" with the president than do Dean and Kerry, who are easier to paint as "eastern liberal elitists," a Bush adviser said.
"I have probably heard more people saying Gephardt looks the strongest because Dean is too far left and Kerry is not panning out as a candidate," added former representative Vin Weber (R-Minn.).
The Midwest is loaded with states that candidates consider must-wins for the presidency. They include Ohio, which every Republican president in history has won, and Missouri, which has voted for the winner in all but one election since 1900.
Although southern Democrats have the best track record for winning recent presidential elections -- think Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon B. Johnson -- Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) lags far behind the other candidates in the field. Clark, the only other southerner, entered the race only last month.
Scott Reed, who managed Robert J. Dole's GOP presidential campaign in 1996, said that it is too early to determine who matches up best with Bush but that the political map appears to favor Gephardt. "If you look at the electoral college map and where a lot of the polls sit today, all arrows point to the Midwest as the battleground," Reed said. "If they can nominate someone from the battleground region, they will have a slight leg up."
The Midwest has been hit hard by manufacturing job losses under Bush. In Michigan, Bush is under fire not only for mounting job losses but also for his decision to impose tariffs on steel, which has hurt automakers and other businesses there and in other states by driving up production costs. Several Republicans cited Bush's steel policy as among his biggest liabilities.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Life and politics is much more complicated than that though. My gut feeling is that Dean is going to win, and he is going to pick one of 3 candidates for VP.
1. Clark--- Military beard.
2. Gephardt-- From Missouri (narrow dem loss in 2000)
3. Bob Graham--From Florida (narrow dem loss in 2000)
I think Florida and Missouri are going to have so many visits by the President and the dem nominee that they might get sick of the both of them in those two states. The election will probably won or lost in Missouri and Florida. Whoever wins those two states wins the election. Period.
Gephardt is a loser. He panders to the gay/greenies as much as any of the other demoncrat candidates. His statements just don't get as much airplay. He won't win the nomination, and he won't ever be the congressional majority leader his dream since he got into politics.
He will always just be a footnote in history and that grates his bones...
OTOH, he has a realistic shot at the nomination, with wins in Iowa (assuming he can pull that off), Missouri (hey, the Rats like him), and Michigan early in the primary schedule. If he wins Iowa he should take the other two, which combined with his Superdelegates would put him at or near the lead in delegates.
Jimmy Carter won 1 election over Gerald Ford, and George Bush won one over Al Gore, but since the age of television, those are the only two elections where the taller candidate won. If you are talking popular vote only, and not electoral college, Jimmy Carter was the only one.
Here is the winner of the popular vote in the TV age
1952 Eisenhower taller than Stevenson (W)
1956 Eisenhower still taller than Stevenson (W)
1960 Kennedy taller than Nixon (W) 1964 Johnson taller than Goldwater (W) 1968 Nixon taller than McCarthy (W) 1972 Nixon taller than McGovern (W) 1976 Ford taller than Carter (L) 1980 Reagan taller than Carter (W) 1984 Reagan taller than Mondale (W) 1988 Bush Sr taller than Dukakkis (W) 1992 Clinton taller than Bush SR (W) 1996 Clinton taller than Dole (W) 2000 Gore taller than W (W)(* popular vote, which doesn't count)
In the television age, the tallest candidate is 12-1 in the popular vote. The Weekly Standard took a look. The toughest candidate for President Bush will be John Kerry, cause he is 6'5".
Even discounting Gore's popular vote win, it is still 11-2. Coincidence, or not?
My thoughts, exactly.
I just cannot see Gephardt as a threat.
He's already lost a large portion of the south, with his gay/green pandering.
Only the extreme hard core liberals hear or heed his message down here in Dixie.
'Course, the Dimbulbrats in this part of the country don't have a clue anyway. Many of them are bewildered by the gay/green thing, and even being life-long dims and libs, they are finding it hard to support some of the crap spewing from the current crop of dimrat heroes.
Looks like internal self-destruction to me.
Good.
Further, he is widely loathed out-state; please note that in 1988, MO's only (I think) presidential primary, Eyebrows won, but only a small plurality in a soapbox derby of 7 candidates.
The notion that he's some sort of MO juggernaut is laughable.
Then who do you see surviving to the convention? I think Dean will win the nomination, but Gephardt and Clark are the other two with the best chances for the nomination. Gephardt has a great shot at Iowa (he's leading now), plus Missouri and Michigan (substantial leads). That's enough to keep him viable. Clark can pick up a few states, or at least a bunch of delegates, in the South if he gets his act together. Do you think Kerry is stronger? Edwards, who barely outpolls Dennis Kucinich and often trails Braun and Sharpton?
1. Iowa - Gephardt, maybe Dean
2. NH - Dean, maybe Kerry
3. Delaware - ??
3. South Carolina - Edwards, maybe ???
3. Missouri - Gephardt
3. Arizona - Dean, maybe Clark, MAYBE Lieberman
3. New Mexico - see AZ
3. Oklahoma - Dean, maybe Clark/Edwards
3. NoDak - ???
4. Michigan - Gephardt
4. Washington state - ???
5. Maine - Dean/Kerry
6. Virginia - Dean/Edwards/????
6. Tennessee - Edwards/Clark/Dean????
The Gephardt Briar Patch The Washington Post is promoting Dick Gephardt as the Democrats' strongest challenger to President Bush. The Post's article is titled "GOP Sees Gephardt as Toughest Rival for Bush." In addition to quoting Republican strategists who say they fear a Gephardt candidacy, the Post points to certain objective factors that would make Gephardt a formidable challenger: his support for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, his Midwestern origins, his (relative) cultural conservatism, his long history of protectionism.
These remind me of the objective reasons why, on paper, Bob Dole was such a powerhouse in 1996. Gephardt's problem is the same as Dole's: he bores voters to tears. There is a big difference between being an influential legislator and being an effective executive, and Gephardt is firmly in the "legislator" camp. As the Post notes, while Gephardt is the closest Democrat to President Bush in recent polling, he trails the President by 13 points.
As for the Republican strategists who profess to be quaking in their boots at the thought of running against Gephardt--just think how he could inspire the union brass!--anyone who takes their statements at face value is sufficiently out of touch to be a reporter for the Post.
DEACON confesses: It's probably only because I've lived in the Washington area for so long, but I'm a bit less sanguine than Rocket Man about a Gephardt candidacy. As I see it, the best nominee for an out-of-power party facing a reasonably popular president usually is one who engenders confidence, as opposed to fear, in mainstream voters. That way if the wheels come off the incumbent, his opponent will be viewed as a safe alternative, while if the wheels don't come off the defeat won't become a landslide that spills over into the congressional races. Gephardt fills this bill. So did Dole, of course, but I think he was a good nominee for us in 1996. No one could have defeated Clinton, in my opinion, and by avoiding a rout, we kept control of Congress.
Not only that, but he's one of a handful of D.C. politicians who fall into what I call "their lips are moving" category. Voters are so accustomed to hearing these people tell the biggest lies that by now we know they're completely phoney.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.