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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?  

[12th Doctor]

 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.

So wait... these American workers don't get paid then?  Your making it sound like there is no benefit to the United States.  Because these companies are here, Americans have jobs.  It's a two way system.  If we set up trade barriers, it wouldn't prevent companies from leaveing, unless we set them so high that it totally chokes off the American economy, but I'm sure that you would be perfectly happy with tent cities in Central Park and people sleeping in churches in Tennessee as long as a couple of jobs came back to Ohio (thats assuming the companies wouldn't just go under).  Anyway, I majorly digressed.

Setting up medium trade barriers is not going to keep companies from leaving the U.S., because, the cost of labor and export will still be cheaper in India and China.  It will prevent foriegn comapnies from coming into America.  the end result will become and even greater loss of American jobs.  Face it, we live in a global economy, whether you like it or not, so leave the 19th century and join us.


P.S.  This isn't to mention the effects of a trade war on the economy, or the fact that not all these jobs are going to outsourcing, a number of them are being taken by machines.

[12th Doctor]

Is the prohibition party on the ballot?

The Federalists are still on the ballot in some places.