GOP Sees Gephardt as Toughest Rival for Bush (Many Say Midwest is Key to Election)

Washington Post ^ | 10/21/03 | Jim VandeHei

[NYC Republican]

Do you agree with this assessment? I think he'd be formidable, but Dean is pretty much unstoppable.

[dogbyte12]

You have to look at the 2000 Electoral map. If all the states divide the same way, then of course Dickie G. would be dangerous. Missouri was I think a 2% win for Bush, and Gephardt running would throw the state to Gephardt, and be the margin of victory in an election.

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.

[BallandPowder]

Powder..Patch..Ball FIRE!

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...

[tdadams]

I have to chuckle and think this is the GOP playing Brer Rabbit: "Please, oh, please... don't make Bush have to campaign against Gephardt." (hee hee hee)

[Galtoid]

I doubt, when it's all said and done, that very many Americans will want to look at that coifed hairdo and those dyed eyebrows for four years. Sorry but looks matter in presidential politics--much more than the pundits want to admit.

[.cnI redruM]

I think if we were stuck with a Dem president 1 year from now, he or LIEberman would do the best for the country out of the Lilliputians currently pursuing the nomination.

Gephardt would run fairly well against Bush. Probably better than a more polarizing elitist like Hatred Powered Howard. However, I try and look at what's good for the country. What's good for the country is not having an evil jerk like Dean controlling either party's fortunes.

Ergo, go Gephardt, go Kerry, go LIEberman. Even if they are a tougher fight in November.

[JohnnyZ]

Dick Gephardt is not from Missouri. He is from St. Louis. There is no love lost between the rest of the state and Dick.

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.

[finnman69]

I think the LW fruitloops will ensure its Dean. Face it, they would nominate Kucinich if they hasd the chance. Gephardt is way to mainstream, and he does not spew the antiwar propaganda that Kerry and Edwards spew ineffectively.

[dogbyte12]

The sad thing is... the most reliable indicator of who is going to win the election is height. Check it out. It really isn't a coincidence. The vast majority of the time, whomever is the tallest candidate for president wins.

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?

[hchutch]

The problem is the base of the Dems will not forgive his pro-war stance vis-a-vis Iraq.

If Gephardt is thenominee, there would be a big split to the Green Party - we're talking DOUBLE the Nader vote, minimum. That will force the Dems to defend Gephardt in places like California, Oregon, Washington State, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and New Mexico.

Bush came within a few thousand votes in Iowa, Wisconsin, Oregon, and New Mexico. That, and Florida would give Bush re-election.

[finnman69]

I think Nader and the greens are biding their time, waiting to see who gets the nominee. Gepahrdt,Lieberman, Edwards and even Kerry would guarantee the greens getting a lot of defections.

[DustyMoment]

Herein lies the problem. The GOP is fretting over tree bark while the entire forest is preparing to fall down on top of them. They need to pull back and get a 30,000 foot view of the situation.

Since Clinton left the WH and even before that when Gephardt lost his senior House position, his star has been fading. I think the GOP is giving Gephardt too much influence, perhaps as a means of focusing attention away from Dean. Either way, I don't see Gephardt survivng to the convention.

[OldSmaj]

I have to chuckle and think this is the GOP playing Brer Rabbit...

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.

[SAJ]

Gephardt's presence on the ticket by no means puts MO in the 'Rat column. His base in the MO electorate has eroded badly -- 4 yrs ago he marginally beat a nobody, and last time around he beat a very popular state rep who was at loggerheads w/the Pubbie establishment and therefore received virtually no campaign funds fr/them...and still only lost by 5.2% IIRC.

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.

[JohnnyZ]

Either way, I don't see Gephardt survivng to the convention.

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 Old Hoosier]

I strongly agree. Strongest opponent for Bush, and probably the only guy who has any chance of beating Dean.

[NYC Republican]

From PowerLineBlog.com

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.

[DustyMoment]

Good question, I don't have a good answer for you. I think that, based on name recognition, Lieberman will survive to the convention as will Dean (press hype) and possibly Kerry and Edwards. My gut feel is that Edwards is shakier and may fall mid-way through the primaries.

Clark's lies, spin, inconsistencies and fancy footwork under the control of the Clintons will make him an early victim of the primaries. I just don't see him lasting very long. His and Lieberman's decision to abandon Iowa is compelling. It also doesn't speak well of Lieberman's chances, despite my having said that I think he will survive to the convention.

The rest of the field, as it currently shapes up are, IMO, simply non-contenders. It doesn't matter a whole lot which of the 9 dwarves survives. IMO Hillary will be drafted during the convention and whatever the 9 dwarves think, say or do will be immaterial.

[tdadams]

Gephardt's problem is the same as Dole's: he bores voters to tears.

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.

[twigs]

Yes, I do agree with this assessment. I've thought all along that Gephardt would be the best Dem candidate (if you're a Dem) and the hardest to beat. While I think that Dean is more likely to win the nomination, I think he's too hard core and anti-military to appeal to the majority of middle Americans that tend to tilt left. The hard left will not like G's military stand, but what choice will they have if he's the candidate? He will get a LOT of the vote that Bush would have gotten if Dean was the candidate. There are a lot of essentially good, hard-working Americans that unfortunately buy into the notion that Dems are against the rich and for them. That's a powerfully emotional argument that's hard to overcome. If they have a candidate they perceive will be tough on the terrorists like Bush has been (I said perceive, not that I believe he will be), then I believe that candidate will get their vote.

Would be very glad to be wrong on this one!