2004 election WI: Kerry picks Gephardt

MrHola

Banned
John Kerry originally wanted to pick Dick Gephardt (Missouri) for Running Mate but was persuaded by Bob Shrum to go for Edwards. WI Kerry picked Gephardt instead? The Midwest is a key region containing numerous swing states. Who knows, perhaps Kerry wins Iowa and Missouri and thus, the majority of electoral votes.
 
John Kerry originally wanted to pick Dick Gephardt (Missouri) for Running Mate but was persuaded by Bob Shrum to go for Edwards. WI Kerry picked Gephardt instead? The Midwest is a key region containing numerous swing states. Who knows, perhaps Kerry wins Iowa and Missouri and thus, the majority of electoral votes.

It's possible but Kerry may very well lose one crucial state than he would in OTL thus even out things in this ATL, so as a result Kerry still loses to Bush by similiar magin.
 
This also raises a few other questions assuming the ticket of Kerry/Gephardt loses to Bush in 04: Would Dick Gephardt make another run for the nomination in 08? And would be the presumptive fronrunner ? Also, if John Edwards was not Kerry's running mate in 04 would he still make a run for the nomination four years later? Or would he instead run for the senate against Elisabeth Dole? Any thoughts?
 
This also raises a few other questions assuming the ticket of Kerry/Gephardt loses to Bush in 04: Would Dick Gephardt make another run for the nomination in 08? And would be the presumptive fronrunner ? Also, if John Edwards was not Kerry's running mate in 04 would he still make a run for the nomination four years later? Or would he instead run for the senate against Elisabeth Dole? Any thoughts?
 
Hmm, there's actually a fair number of plausible combinations that could result in a deadlocked electoral college:

Actual Electoral Votes:

Bush: 286
Kerry: 251* (one pledged Kerry elector in Minnesota voted for Edwards / Kerry rather than Kerry / Edwards)

270 votes needed to win (half of 538 plus 1)

If you flipped Missouri and Iowa, that's an 18 vote margin for Kerry, which would let him win (with 270)...if the faithless elector in Minnesota is butterflied. However, IMO, flipping Missouri may take more than just Gephardt's native son effect.

If instead you flipped Iowa and Ohio to Kerry, but Wisconsin to Bush, then you get Bush with 269. Kerry would then only have 269, even if the faithless elector were butterflied. Neither has a majority. Though I just did the math and the Republicans have 22 safe delegations in the House and with 8 within 1 vote; some of these are states that would have voted Democratic in the popular vote (like Iowa and Connecticut and Ohio). The Democrats have 18 safe delegations and 2 within 1 vote (WV and MS, both of which voted heavily for Bush). I'd assume that Bush thus wins in the House, since he probably still wins the national popular vote.
 
Another impact is going to be Gephardt's STRONGLY held views on two (2) issues near and deep to America Left (yes, small but powerfull in the Democratic party and critical in several "leaning states."

1. Iraq, Gephardt stood then (and still does) by his Iraq War vote. While he is was critical on the post fall of Baghad conduct of the war, I doubt he'll do a Edward's reversal.
1a. Gephardt supports the Patroit Act and support GWOT loudly.

2. Taxes, he's a tax reformer/cutter, once again while overshadowed by Iraq in 2004, undoing Republican tax policies (going back to Reagan and that arch-republican tax cutter JFK) was a demand of the MoveOn types.

So while gaining votes (maybe even mind, I supported Gephardt in the primaries), how many does he lose from the hard core left... Plus the possible convention scrap and the tears (and interviews) from the left's media stars.

My guess, Gephardt puts in play;

OTL Bush Win;
New Mexico/ 5
Iowa/ 7
Colorado/ 9
Missouri 11 (easy win OTL, but Gephardt is still very much the favored son)
Ohio 20 (maybe, i susspect Kerry got every vote, and a few more, that he was going to get in Oh)

But OTL Kerry Win how in play/ lean Bush;
Wisconsin /11
New Hampshire/ 4
Minnesota/ 10
Penn/ 21 (OTL Kerry's people worried abt Penn till the last day)

Plus Gephart while Gephardt won't lose the West Coast for Kerry, much like in 2000, he forces Kerry to campaign (read spend money) there while not giving Bush the same headacne in the South and midwest.

Swinging everything but PA and OH, get a 7 vote gain, not enough. Especially if Gephardt on the ticket casues Bush/Cheney to fight the end, instead of coasting (and focusing on the House races) the last two week as in our OTL

In the end it's a push.
 
Kerry picked Edwards for regional balance. Kerry came from the NE, so he needed someone from the South. This has been the logic for about a century. I thought it was a bad idea at the time, seeing that the Democratic party lost the entire south in 2000 even with Gores home state being Tennessee. Regardless of what happened in Florida, he still would have won if he had delivered his home state.

I thought one of the weirder things was a millionaire (Bush) calling another millionaire (Kerry) an elitist be cause he married a billionaire (Theresa Heinz).
 
However, IMO, flipping Missouri may take more than just Gephardt's native son effect.

The smaller the state the more effect a VP choice has.



As for the election itself Kerry probably still loses, and I doubt Gephardt does better than Edwards in '08…*butterflies, of course, but I don't see the broad outline changing much.

One butterfly could see Matt Blunt losing to (OTL '06 Senator) Claire McCaskill in the '04 gubernatorial which leaves Jay Nixon (OTL '08 Governor contender) in a very good position for the '06 Senate race.
 
Top