Gephardt vs. Bush

[Keystone Phil]

Dick Gephardt somehow gets the Dem nomination and selects John Edwards as his running mate. They go on to face Bush-Cheney in the fall.

Maps please.

[YRABNNRM]

Gephardt/Edwards- 279
Bush/Cheney- 259

Gephardt is able to tap into the his union support and swing states such as Ohio and Iowa (which I assume he wins instead of Kerry in the primary). He makes WV and MO a tad closer but not close enough to win them. Edwards doesn't do much (no difference there).

[bullmoose88]

Flip New Hampshire and I'd agree...assuming no one gets turned off by gephardt's smashing charisma. (if they didnt for Kerry...then no worries)

[Reignman]

Image Link

[Michael Z]

Bush would've won. I think the only Democrats who would have been able to hold a halfway credible campaign against Bush were Clark and Edwards. Dean would have been destroyed - the Iraq war then was nowhere near as unpopular as it is now - and Gephardt probably would have changed his position on the war like Kerry and been portrayed as a "flip-flopper".

That said, it probably doesn't matter who won the nomination, Rove's PR machine would have done a feasible hit job on them in one way or another. It's how the candidate would've coped with it that would've made the difference. I think Gephardt would've been about as clumsy as Kerry in this regard.

[YRABNNRM]

Flip New Hampshire and I'd agree...assuming no one gets turned off by gephardt's smashing charisma. (if they didnt for Kerry...then no worries)

I kept NH the same because I assumed that the votes were more Anti-Bush than Pro-Kerry.

[Keystone Phil]

Gephardt/Edwards- 279
Bush/Cheney- 259

Gephardt is able to tap into the his union support and swing states such as Ohio and Iowa (which I assume he wins instead of Kerry in the primary). He makes WV and MO a tad closer but not close enough to win them. Edwards doesn't do much (no difference there).

I was going to say the same but West Virginia and Ohio would be the two big swing states. It would be very close.

[Verily]

Gephardt, 50%-49%, 280-258.

While I agree that the New Hampshire votes were more anti-Bush than pro-Kerry, I can't imagine a New Hampshire that despised Gephardt as Majority and then Minority Leader for so long voting for him for President.

[YRABNNRM]

[img width=506 height=313]
While I agree that the New Hampshire votes were more anti-Bush than pro-Kerry, I can't imagine a New Hampshire that despised Gephardt as Majority and then Minority Leader for so long voting for him for President.

What makes you say that? Do you really think they'd vote for Bush (who lost the counties he lost in NH by more than 10 points) over Gephardt?

I would've switched WV out of convential wisdom but being that Bush won there by 10+ points I don't think that it would be enough for any Democrat to overcome, but Gephardt would've made it a bit closer than it actually was.

[CPT MikeyMike]

Was Gephardt that much better of a campainger to begin with?

[YRABNNRM]

Was Gephardt that much better of a campainger to begin with?

He wasn't great but he was able to connect with the common man more than Kerry could. He also has his labor/union ties which would help him greatly.

[CultureKing]

Here's how I see it happening:



Basically unlike Kerry Gephart is able to run an ok campaign and wins Ohio, Iowa, and Missouri while losing New Hampshire versus Kerry's result.

[CultureKing]

Here's how I see it happening:



Basically unlike Kerry Gephart is able to run an ok campaign and wins Ohio, Iowa, and Missouri while losing New Hampshire versus Kerry's result.

Oh and Popular vote:
Gephardt: 50%
Bush: 48.5%
Other 1.5%

EC:
Gephardt: 286
Bush:252

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Gephardt/Edwards: 295
Bush/Cheney: 243

[YRABNNRM]

As I said in the other thread, I apologize for bumping such an old thread but I've been on a 2004 kick recently.

I pretty much agree with the map that I posted earlier in the thread. I believe that Gephardt's union ties and ability to connect with the common man would have allowed him to win the election. President Gephardt is such an old thought to consider. I believe that for these reasons Gephardt would have been a stronger running mate for Kerry than Edwards was.

I think that in 2004 any candidate that ran a mildly decent campaign could have beaten Bush. I mean, I believe that Kerry ran a terrible campaign and he almost won it so just imagine what a better campaign could do.