In a way, it’s fitting that Iowa is one of the last undecided states, and one of the closest in the country — and that it’s voting, narrowly, for Bush. This whole thing is Iowa’s fault, after all. If the Democrats there had picked Edwards or Gephardt on Jan. 19, George W. Bush would probably be packing his bags right now.
I don’t think Edwards would have won. Gephardt, perhaps, but he gave up too quickly. Trouble was, the Democrats didn’t have a good candidate to pick from. None of them were inspiring. None, not even Edwards for all his southern charm he always seemed like a vaguely sleazy trial lawyer. Gephardt might have pulled it out, given he probably could have carried Missouri plus the Gore states, and that could have put him just over the bar. But we will never know.
I think Edwards could have carried Ohio and Florida, and he would have been competitive in Arkansas, and would have at least made Bush divert some resources to North Carolina. Edwards is just a more appealing, likeable candidate than Kerry, and he is better at the whole the-economy-sucks-but-we’re-going-to-fix-it thing. Generally, I think more undecideds would have broken for him than did for Kerry. Also, there would have been no Vietnam baggage. The only downside with Edwards would have been his inexperience, but Bush cleaned up on the terrorism vote anyway, so I’m not sure how much that would have mattered.
Oh, also, Edwards would have been stronger in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, thus allowing him to spend more time elsewhere instead of playing frantic defense for the last two weeks of the campaign.
The fundamental problem is that the candidate who would have been most fit for office and appealed to most Americans was not a candidate that would appeal to Democratic primary voters. Until the Democrats find a way to reconcile that problem, their losing streak will continue.
I think Dean would have been the best candidate becuase his platform was strikingly different from Bush’s. Kerry just wasn’t impressive over the long haul.
Best candidate in the sense that I would have won my bet for Bush to get over 300 electoral votes? Hell yeah. Best candidate in the sense that he could have won the election? Umm…..
November 3rd, 2004 at 7:29:33 pm
I don’t think Edwards would have won. Gephardt, perhaps, but he gave up too quickly. Trouble was, the Democrats didn’t have a good candidate to pick from. None of them were inspiring. None, not even Edwards for all his southern charm he always seemed like a vaguely sleazy trial lawyer. Gephardt might have pulled it out, given he probably could have carried Missouri plus the Gore states, and that could have put him just over the bar. But we will never know.
November 3rd, 2004 at 8:15:16 pm
I think Edwards could have carried Ohio and Florida, and he would have been competitive in Arkansas, and would have at least made Bush divert some resources to North Carolina. Edwards is just a more appealing, likeable candidate than Kerry, and he is better at the whole the-economy-sucks-but-we’re-going-to-fix-it thing. Generally, I think more undecideds would have broken for him than did for Kerry. Also, there would have been no Vietnam baggage. The only downside with Edwards would have been his inexperience, but Bush cleaned up on the terrorism vote anyway, so I’m not sure how much that would have mattered.
Gephardt would have won Missouri, Iowa and Ohio.
November 3rd, 2004 at 8:15:38 pm
P.S. Lieberman also would have won, but I can’t blame Iowa for that one. :)
November 3rd, 2004 at 8:16:29 pm
Oh, also, Edwards would have been stronger in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, thus allowing him to spend more time elsewhere instead of playing frantic defense for the last two weeks of the campaign.
November 3rd, 2004 at 8:18:51 pm
The fundamental problem is that the candidate who would have been most fit for office and appealed to most Americans was not a candidate that would appeal to Democratic primary voters. Until the Democrats find a way to reconcile that problem, their losing streak will continue.
November 3rd, 2004 at 9:09:27 pm
I think Dean would have been the best candidate becuase his platform was strikingly different from Bush’s. Kerry just wasn’t impressive over the long haul.
November 3rd, 2004 at 9:20:43 pm
Best candidate in the sense that I would have won my bet for Bush to get over 300 electoral votes? Hell yeah. Best candidate in the sense that he could have won the election? Umm…..
November 3rd, 2004 at 11:41:02 pm
Andrew … SHHHHH !
*wink* They picked a great candidate, and, in spite of what a great candidate they picked, the better man one …
(innocent grin)