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

[elcorazon]

Gephardt is a "safe" choice, but not a "good" choice.  I don't think he carries Missouri for Kerry, but he can't hurt I suppose.  I don't think he really impacts the race much at all, except to make the ticket more boring.  This has zero impact on my maps...not sure anybody would have much of an impact, but I do think Edwards was the best choice.  I still hope this is inaccurate and that Edwards is the man.  It's ALL about image.  All those voting issues already know where their vote is going.

[The Duke]

Here' something no one has pointed out- Dick Gephardt has never run for statewide office in Missouri.  Most of the time, a politician from a state puts that state in your column, but then again, most of the time they have run for statewide office before (Senator or Governor).  Gephardt even had to have his district redrawn because he could barely carry St. Louis anymore.  Missouri is as much a swing state with Gephardt on a ticket as without him.

Oh, and what do you guys suppose NOW will say about Richard Gephardt and abortion come convention time?

[Lunar]

Here' something no one has pointed out- Dick Gephardt has never run for statewide office in Missouri.  Most of the time, a politician from a state puts that state in your column, but then again, most of the time they have run for statewide office before (Senator or Governor).  Gephardt even had to have his district redrawn because he could barely carry St. Louis anymore.  Missouri is as much a swing state with Gephardt on a ticket as without him.

I disagree slightly, I think he gives a slight boost to Kerry.

Not only is he a native, but he has those vital labor connections which can provide the organization Kerry needs to have a decent shot at the state.  Those same connections could help in several other states as well.

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

Gephardt at least gives Kerry a shot at winning Missouri, he certainly wouldn't gain anything by choosing Edwards.  Gephardt's main problem is that he is old discarded news and therefore is a bigger risk than Edwards.

Gev. Richardson (NM) is Kerry's best choice.

[ThePrezMex]

I've asked a number of times why nobody mentions the name of Evan Bayh.
Only one person responded, saying that it would be difficult for him to deliver Indiana (which I agree, but at least would force Bush to spend some time there) but would certainly help in OH and PA - well, that's enough for me. Bayh, being a centrist could also help in states like MO, AZ and NV, at least making them real toss-ups.
Why nobody has mentioned former Sen. Max Cleland as a possible choice? he could really help in the south and good be popular nationwide. The fact that he was defeated in his reelection bid was because of one of the nastier and mean spirited campaigns ever.
The reason you're not discussing these two is because you all have insider information about which names are being vetted by Kerry's campaign? couldn't those leaks be a distraction?

[Lunar]

I've asked a number of times why nobody mentions the name of Evan Bayh.
Only one person responded, saying that it would be difficult for him to deliver Indiana (which I agree, but at least would force Bush to spend some time there) but would certainly help in OH and PA - well, that's enough for me. Bayh, being a centrist could also help in states like MO, AZ and NV, at least making them real toss-ups.

They would have a lot of conflicting views, but I've always said he was one of the top choices.

Why nobody has mentioned former Sen. Max Cleland as a possible choice? he could really help in the south and good be popular nationwide.

On top of being a loser for that Georgia senate seat, choosing a one-armed man is way too corny.

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

I've asked a number of times why nobody mentions the name of Evan Bayh.
Only one person responded, saying that it would be difficult for him to deliver Indiana (which I agree, but at least would force Bush to spend some time there) but would certainly help in OH and PA - well, that's enough for me. Bayh, being a centrist could also help in states like MO, AZ and NV, at least making them real toss-ups.
Why nobody has mentioned former Sen. Max Cleland as a possible choice? he could really help in the south and good be popular nationwide. The fact that he was defeated in his reelection bid was because of one of the nastier and mean spirited campaigns ever.
The reason you're not discussing these two is because you all have insider information about which names are being vetted by Kerry's campaign? couldn't those leaks be a distraction?

Edwards is a distraction IMHO. Edwards won't be the pick.

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

Sen. Max Cleland as a possible choice? he could really help in the south and good be popular nationwide. The fact that he was defeated in his reelection bid was because of one of the nastier and mean spirited campaigns ever.

Cleland would have lost regardless of the spriit of the campaign.  He didn't vote with Bush on a couple of key votes and the people thriew him out of office 53-46%.  The GOP absolutely romped in Georgia in 2002!

Losing three limbs, although highly heroic, doesn't mean you have any special right to be reelected.

[Ben.]

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.

Would these be the Unions who said their support would make Iowa a lock for Gephardt or the ones who said their support would make Iowa a lock for Dean?



I have a hunch that Kerry will throw any tactical advantage that Edwards, Warner, ect... could bring to the ticket and go with someone who brings nothing, but who he is comfortable with, if Geppy gets the nod there's a 1/4 chance I vote Bush, hell if Kerry picks anyone other than a moderate with some charisma that chance exists, that I may just vote for “W”, but that would require me to forget about my profound discomfort with the likes of Ashcroft and Cheney, which will probably not happen.

[Lunar]

Ben, Kerry is guaranteed to pick someone more moderate than himself.  The vice president has no real power and if Kerry kicks the bucket you'll end up with someone closer to your beliefs.  There aren't that many people more liberal than him...

[opebo]

Gephardt is not at all well liked in Missouri outside his congressional district.  In fact his congressional district itself is not well liked by the rest of Missouri!

[Lunar]

Gephardt is not at all well liked in Missouri outside his congressional district.  In fact his congressional district itself is not well liked by the rest of Missouri!

But that one CD can win Kerry the state if he gets good turnout there and does about what Gore did in the other areas.

[TeePee4Prez]

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.

I'll have to agree with you on this super.  It's funny coming from you because you're in a part of PA Gephardt may actually swing.  Other than old factory workers here in say NE Philly or Bristol, he won't do anything and in fact hurt.  The Center City liberals would not go for him, but I do think they would go for Edwards.  He has the charisma to sway the Philly burbs and CC liberals while he can switch it up out in Pittsburgh and talk about protectionism and still hold credibility.  

[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.

I'll have to agree with you on this super.  It's funny coming from you because you're in a part of PA Gephardt may actually swing.  Other than old factory workers here in say NE Philly or Bristol, he won't do anything and in fact hurt.  The Center City liberals would not go for him, but I do think they would go for Edwards.  He has the charisma to sway the Philly burbs and CC liberals while he can switch it up out in Pittsburgh and talk about protectionism and still hold credibility.  

I should probably add New Jersey to that list as well.  New Jersey is not a big protectionist state (unless I am very mistaken, but the economy there is changing, indeed, thriving in many parts) and New Jersey seems to have mysteriously become at least a nominal swing state (which still leans Kerry).  But with Gephardt on the ticket, they run the risk of making the campaign look way too protectionist, which is frought with major hazards in the states that I mentioned and states like Ohio and Tennessee (where large numbers of people are employed by foriegn companies).  If they go with Gephardt, they should just allow that in itself to be a statement and not work too hard to press the issue.

[TeePee4Prez]

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.

I'll have to agree with you on this super.  It's funny coming from you because you're in a part of PA Gephardt may actually swing.  Other than old factory workers here in say NE Philly or Bristol, he won't do anything and in fact hurt.  The Center City liberals would not go for him, but I do think they would go for Edwards.  He has the charisma to sway the Philly burbs and CC liberals while he can switch it up out in Pittsburgh and talk about protectionism and still hold credibility.  

I should probably add New Jersey to that list as well.  New Jersey is not a big protectionist state (unless I am very mistaken, but the economy there is changing, indeed, thriving in many parts) and New Jersey seems to have mysteriously become at least a nominal swing state (which still leans Kerry).  But with Gephardt on the ticket, they run the risk of making the campaign look way too protectionist, which is frought with major hazards in the states that I mentioned and states like Ohio and Tennessee (where large numbers of people are employed by foriegn companies).  If they go with Gephardt, they should just allow that in itself to be a statement and not work too hard to press the issue.

You're right Gephardt would be a very bad idea for New Jersey, the Philly burbs, Delaware, or Connecticut.    From my local perpective, he would help NE Philly and maybe older industiral suburbs like Norristown or Bristol, but hurt elsewhere and enough to turn PA or even NJ.

[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.

I'll have to agree with you on this super.  It's funny coming from you because you're in a part of PA Gephardt may actually swing.  Other than old factory workers here in say NE Philly or Bristol, he won't do anything and in fact hurt.  The Center City liberals would not go for him, but I do think they would go for Edwards.  He has the charisma to sway the Philly burbs and CC liberals while he can switch it up out in Pittsburgh and talk about protectionism and still hold credibility.  

I should probably add New Jersey to that list as well.  New Jersey is not a big protectionist state (unless I am very mistaken, but the economy there is changing, indeed, thriving in many parts) and New Jersey seems to have mysteriously become at least a nominal swing state (which still leans Kerry).  But with Gephardt on the ticket, they run the risk of making the campaign look way too protectionist, which is frought with major hazards in the states that I mentioned and states like Ohio and Tennessee (where large numbers of people are employed by foriegn companies).  If they go with Gephardt, they should just allow that in itself to be a statement and not work too hard to press the issue.

You're right Gephardt would be a very bad idea for New Jersey, the Philly burbs, Delaware, or Connecticut.    From my local perpective, he would help NE Philly and maybe older industiral suburbs like Norristown or Bristol, but hurt elsewhere and enough to turn PA or even NJ.

That's what I figured.  Glad to here we aggree on something.    Like I said, however, if Kerry goes with Gephardt and lets that in itself be a statement, without allowing protectionist sentiments to become a huge part of the campaign, then perhapes it will work.  I can't see that happening though, as Kerry is already pushing it hard.

[struct310]

Playing any protectionist ticket is kind of risky for Kerry.  While possibly winning 1 or 2 industrial belt states, he could alienate Oregon, Washington, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Maine, and New Mexico enough that they go to Bush.  Gephardt is likely the VP though.

[World Order]

I would more likely vote democrat if Edwards was picked than Gephardt. But Kerry has a better chance of winning Missouri than North Carolina. If Kerry won Missouri, the Republicans still have a number of ways out like winning Ohio or Pennslyvania. But if Kerry got North Carolina, the bodyblow is huge to the Republicans and Kerry still has a shot at Missouri.

[JNB]

 Again, being for free trade is not an issue people feel passionate about. This is how it goes, the people who support free trade are mostly in white collar jobs, they tend to be in higher income brackets, and they tend to vote more based on social issues than economic ones. Many of the so called Independents(I perfer the term media moderates since the media tries to force that this is the definiotion of moderate) who have well paying jobs fall into this camp. But that said, they are far more likley to voted base don their support for abortion rights, gay rights and the enviroment. To them, the issue of trade is just noise, so running supporting a degree of protectionism will not swing all that many Democratic/Independent voters away from Kerry.

   Conversely, there are many voters who have since the 80s voted more and more on social issues, such as their opposition to abortion, their support for gunowner rights, disgust at multi culturalism, but they also have been worried about their economic well being, the stability of their employment situation. They see Free Trade as a very raw deal, they seeing as being anti American, the notion of companies sending jobs to China, Mexico and elsewhere, while seeing, if they still have a job, their pay stagnate for many years while their cost of living just keeps on going up. This is a group that can be swayed very much so by a campigan that runs on some degree of protectionism.

   I really fail to see, based on how people vote and feel about the issue of trade, how running for fair trade will hurt Kerry. Kerry has far more to gain than lose from these positions.

[Mort from NewYawk]

The accepted wisdom, after twelve years of support by Clinton and then Bush, is that free trade, though it hurts certain sectors, is a wiser economic policy for the nation than restricted trade. If Kerry is supposed to be the thoughtful and studied candidate, and the economy is where he's supposedly the more capable man, shouldn't he be supporting that policy which economists approve?

I think the GOP will not waste any time in portraying Kerry as pandering to a key constituency with a platform he doesn't really support. Kerry, under pressure, is sure to take about five different positions on the subject. His support is not so strong that he can afford much more of that.

[JNB]

 For one, accepted wisdom does not allways mean reality. The economic boom in the 90s and the economic growth today is more due to lose credit standards(Though today much of the growth comes from runaway gov spending) than it has to do with trade. Trade at best amounts to short term economic gains though supression of inflation at the expense of long term ecobomic growth meaning stagnating median(note I did not say average) incomes.

  Again I stand by what I said, people who support free trade really do not have that issue on their radar screen. Its a "Oh thats nice" response, people against free trade are BITTERLY opposed to it. The swing voters who support free trade as I said are more moved by social issues and the enviroment than any arguements for free trade, the swing voters against free trade have the issue of trade in the middle of their radar.

  If the GOP tries to run on a platform of being for free trade, in ads, then OH, WV and any chance at PA will be lost, and possibly AR would be lost. It might help Bush a little in NJ and CT, but not nearly enough to push him though in those states. As for WA and OR, you would be surprised how angry people there are over the job outsourcing issue.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

WA=BC South

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

Trade at best amounts to short term economic gains though supression of inflation at the expense of long term ecobomic growth meaning stagnating median(note I did not say average) incomes.

Yeah, I guess that is why median income families have been able to markedly increase their standard of living since the vast majority of this group owns two or more color TVs, a computer, at least one car, etc, etc, etc.

Their incomes may have remained stagnat, but their dollars buy a whole lot more.

[12th Doctor]

 Again, being for free trade is not an issue people feel passionate about.

Again, they aren't ecited by the word "free trade" until they understand how it effects their lives.  If you explain that to them, then they think it is important.  Most people honestly don't really know much about either subject, (except the unions) but (as you pointed out) especially the free-traders, because most really don't understand the issue.  They see the possitive effects of free-trade in their lives everyday, but it isn't something they think about.  When you explain it, they get it and they turn against protectionism.




Do you think that Americans should be driving American cars instead of Hondas, JNB?  

[JNB]

 The supposed advantages of Free trade can not be condensed into a attention grabbing soundbite, not in the way "Outsourcing jobs" or "sending jobs to China" can. Yes, its nice Honda and Toyota builds cars in the US, but that was more due to the 10 year weak dollar policy from 85-95 that caused the dollar to drop more than 50% against the Yen in that period, the profits still go to the Japanese companies.


  Jmfcst, I guess it depends on how you define standard of living. Yes, because of ultra lax credit standards, people can afford more toys, but when it comes to the basics, such as housing and medical care, the median standard of living has at best, and this includes the avilbility of credit to prop people up, has gone down. The Family income to housing pirce ratio in the mid 60s was 2.7 to 1, now its almost 4, and that doesnt take into account a far greater percentage of familes have both parents working. Medical costs eat up more on ones paycheck, and despite the propaganda from sources that I wont mention again, the tax burden on the average family has only increased in the last 40 years, while federal taxes have gone down on paper, there are less exemptions, higher state,local and property taxes and higher fees for all kinds of services.

  Numbers on paper are easy to minipulate, but when one goes behind the numbers, one can see the US economy is not nearly as great as those whop would say otherwise.