Falcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted
Tue Oct 26 2004 16:26:56 UTC (10 years 7 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 926 times:
Well, so far, Kerry still has a pretty decent chance of winning. He's dead even in most polls with the +/- factor, so I don't know what more Gephart would have brought to the table.
I suspect that, unless the Dems had really gone on a limb with Howard Dean, who is just too far out there, in my view, the race would be pretty much what it is now, if Gephart had been the nominee.
MaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 18300 posts, RR: 47
Reply 2, posted
Tue Oct 26 2004 17:27:48 UTC (10 years 7 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 904 times:
No way; thankfully everyone realized what he was: an isolationist Luddite labor puppet. He would destroy the economy.
E pur si muove -Galileo
NonRevKing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted
Tue Oct 26 2004 17:38:10 UTC (10 years 7 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 900 times:
I was 100% behind Bob Graham actually, having seen his work from my time in Florida. I think he would have easily defeated Bush. Sadly he had heart surgery early in the primaries, which took him out of the spotlight, and he never caught up.
FDXmech From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3251 posts, RR: 32
Reply 4, posted
Tue Oct 26 2004 19:21:18 UTC (10 years 7 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 883 times:
I think Gephardt would've been a better choice.
I don't think there would be any question about his ability to assume Commander in Chief.
He would be a natural in the midwest swing states. Not only is he a Missourian but a staunch voice for American labor.
He's alway's seemed to me a centrist Democrat. I like 'em.
You're only as good as your last departure.