AFL/CIO says Gephardt is a "done deal" for VP

[The Vorlon]

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040621/whispers/21whisplead_2.htm

Take a shot at Missouri, shore up Iowa, Wisconsin, the rest of the "rust belt" - not a crazy choice if true.

[??????????]

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040621/whispers/21whisplead_2.htm

Take a shot at Missouri, shore up Iowa, Wisconsin, the rest of the "rust belt" - not a crazy choice if true.

Bush walks back into office easily if this is the case.

[MODU]

Shall we all do the Gephardt dance now?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

A protectionist like Gephardt (or Edwards for that matter) would be a smart VP move... easiest way to win low income voters I can think of...

[The Vorlon]

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040621/whispers/21whisplead_2.htm

Take a shot at Missouri, shore up Iowa, Wisconsin, the rest of the "rust belt" - not a crazy choice if true.

Bush walks back into office easily if this is the case.

One thing positive for Gephardt is that as an actual person he is well liked, and this can and does make a difference when trying to rally you OWN people to get them motivated to drive turnout.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Ugh...there's a reason Gephardt has run for national office six times (twice for President, four times for Speaker), and failed every time.  He is boring and has no national appeal....when will the rest of the Democratic party realize this?

[Lunar]

I don't think it's a bad choice.  As I said before, a 2-3% boost in Missouri would go a long way.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I don't think it's a bad choice.  As I said before, a 2-3% boost in Missouri would go a long way.

But Edwards would give the same boost in Missouri, as well as every other swing state.

[Lunar]

Edwards doesn't have the actual labor connections and he isn't a native of the state.  I don't think Edwards would give the same boost in Missouri like you say.

[12th Doctor]

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040621/whispers/21whisplead_2.htm

Take a shot at Missouri, shore up Iowa, Wisconsin, the rest of the "rust belt" - not a crazy choice if true.

Bush walks back into office easily if this is the case.

Gephradt comes with his own benefits and hazards, but he is a better choice over-all than Edwards.

Gephardt has labor connections and if the Dems are going for a Mid-west strategy, Gephardt is their best bet.  However, Gephardt's unappologetic support of the war may turn a lot of far lefties to Nader.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040621/whispers/21whisplead_2.htm

Take a shot at Missouri, shore up Iowa, Wisconsin, the rest of the "rust belt" - not a crazy choice if true.

Bush walks back into office easily if this is the case.

One thing positive for Gephardt is that as an actual person he is well liked, and this can and does make a difference when trying to rally you OWN people to get them motivated to drive turnout.

Which is the key to a Dem win in WV...

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Edwards doesn't have the actual labor connections and he isn't a native of the state.  I don't think Edwards would give the same boost in Missouri like you say.

Lot of good those "labor connections" did in Iowa.  
Lot of good they did the Democrats in 2002.

[Lunar]

DEMOCRATS WIN IN ALL OF THE FOLLOWING SCENARIOS:






A chance of getting the big M gives him a lot of outs.

[12th Doctor]

I owuldn't put much money on Gephardt bringing in Missouri.  He will shore up Kerry in Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin and possibly Ohio.

[??????????]

Not necessarily Lunar :




R-291
D-247

[zachman]

Gephardt is the type of boring new deal democrat who makes me want to be an independent, or even... a republican.

[Mort from NewYawk]

Gephardt has more gravitas than Edwards. Most voters would rather have a known quantity a heartbeat away from the Presidency, someone with a long record of service.

The protectionist plank is the key thing here. Voters concerned about outsourcing aren't going to vote for the Dems based on Gephardt's stump speech. How far is Kerry willing to go with this? Bush will probably take an unambiguous free trade position. I can see Kerry getting into big trouble for flip-flopping on trade.

Additionally, Gephardt has failed in his quest for the Presidency more than any politician in recent memory. He's not the best way to excite the young left. Supersoulty is right  - this move risks losing young voters to Nader, which is bad for holding MN, NH, and OR.

  Gephardt endorsing Kerry

[??????????]

  Gephardt endorsing Kerry

Maybe it's just me, but look at this picture. Which one looks to be in charge here. Is this the Democratic version of Bush/Cheney?

[12th Doctor]

I have nothing against Gephardt.  I think he is a nice guy, personaly, I approve of him.  Personally, I think that if the Dems are attemping a Mid-west strategy then he is their best bet, but there are some draw backs to consider.

1) Protectionism will not sell in New Hampshire, Oregon or New Mexico.  Correct me if I am wrong, but those are mostly free-trade states.

2) Protectionism never wins.  The only protectionist who was able to carry the election in since FDR was Truman.  Since then, the U.S. has never elected a true protectionist (Carter wasn't that big of one).  

3) Gephardt probably won't carry Missouri for the ticket.  Most of Missouri is not like St. Louis.

4) Gephardt's support for the war will turn-off a lot of the Deaniacs.

P.S. Dean and Gephardt hate each other.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I quite like Gephardt

[JNB]

 People need to stop using WSJ op-ed talking points. The truth about free trade as an election issue is that it is an issue that people who are for it are not strongly for it. It is really not on their radar screens except in a few cases, on the other hand, the people who oppose free trade very strongly and bitterly oppose it. If Kerry plays the issue correctly, it wont hurt him in states such as NH(and remebr Buchahan did quite well in the NH primaries back in 92 running against free trade), NM or OR, but it will shore up Kerry in the upper midwest, and help him quite a bit in OH and WV, even possibly AR. Bush coming out for free trade is a VERY stupid move, since everytime he opens his mouth on the issue, more voters who are with the GOP on issues such as guns and abortion leave his camp.

  Also, the US has elected protectionists since Truman. Eisenhower was not what one could call a free trader, most of the trade policies were connected to national defense to shore up Europe at the time, and Nixon actually approved of raised tariffs.

 If this story is true, the stage is set for Kerry, but he also needs to not implode as Dukakis did in 88. Kerry has been careful in public recently, though Bush has had more than enough rope to hang himself with. Looking at Rasmussen reports, that Bush got such a small bump tells me that many people are just fed up with the lack of leadership Bush is showing.

[12th Doctor]

 People need to stop using WSJ op-ed talking points. The truth about free trade as an election issue is that it is an issue that people who are for it are not strongly for it. It is really not on their radar screens except in a few cases, on the other hand, the people who oppose free trade very strongly and bitterly oppose it. If Kerry plays the issue correctly, it wont hurt him in states such as NH(and remebr Buchahan did quite well in the NH primaries back in 92 running against free trade), NM or OR, but it will shore up Kerry in the upper midwest, and help him quite a bit in OH and WV, even possibly AR. Bush coming out for free trade is a VERY stupid move, since everytime he opens his mouth on the issue, more voters who are with the GOP on issues such as guns and abortion leave his camp.

  Also, the US has elected protectionists since Truman. Eisenhower was not what one could call a free trader, most of the trade policies were connected to national defense to shore up Europe at the time, and Nixon actually approved of raised tariffs.

 If this story is true, the stage is set for Kerry, but he also needs to not implode as Dukakis did in 88. Kerry has been careful in public recently, though Bush has had more than enough rope to hang himself with. Looking at Rasmussen reports, that Bush got such a small bump tells me that many people are just fed up with the lack of leadership Bush is showing.

Sure, when people say "free trade" it doesn't excite many emotions aoung those who are for, because they don't really understand what it means, but when you start talking about individual aspects of it that relate to their daily lives, trust me, it excites emotions amoung people.  And by the way, you assume way too much.  I don't even read the WSJ.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

People need to stop using WSJ op-ed talking points.

I see you're still looking for a new argument.

[ThePrezMex]

 People need to stop using WSJ op-ed talking points. The truth about free trade as an election issue is that it is an issue that people who are for it are not strongly for it. It is really not on their radar screens except in a few cases, on the other hand, the people who oppose free trade very strongly and bitterly oppose it. If Kerry plays the issue correctly, it wont hurt him in states such as NH(and remebr Buchahan did quite well in the NH primaries back in 92 running against free trade), NM or OR, but it will shore up Kerry in the upper midwest, and help him quite a bit in OH and WV, even possibly AR. Bush coming out for free trade is a VERY stupid move, since everytime he opens his mouth on the issue, more voters who are with the GOP on issues such as guns and abortion leave his camp.

  Also, the US has elected protectionists since Truman. Eisenhower was not what one could call a free trader, most of the trade policies were connected to national defense to shore up Europe at the time, and Nixon actually approved of raised tariffs.

 If this story is true, the stage is set for Kerry, but he also needs to not implode as Dukakis did in 88. Kerry has been careful in public recently, though Bush has had more than enough rope to hang himself with. Looking at Rasmussen reports, that Bush got such a small bump tells me that many people are just fed up with the lack of leadership Bush is showing.

George H.W. Bush was no protectionist - he negotiated NAFTA and vigorously promoted it.
Kerry could use the strategy Clinton used in 1992. At first he showed reluctance towards NAFTA (during the campaign) and once he was elected he decided to risk a good deal of political capital getting Congress to approve it. Clinton was no protectionist and during his presidency he tried to promote several other free trade agreements. The Republicans in Congress, showing more hate to Clinton than consistency towards their economic freedom principles, denied him during all his administration of the fast track authority he needed.

[12th Doctor]

People need to stop using WSJ op-ed talking points.

I see you're still looking for a new argument.

HA    When we aren't debating religion I love you, man.