Dick Gephardt will withdraw from the presidential race in a little less than two hours, narrowing the field to seven candidates (five real ones once you discount Sharpton and Kucinich). Who’ll benefit most from his absence?
Gephardt, in many ways, was a throw-back candidate, representing an old school Democratic philosophy. While his rivals presented themselves as “fresh faces,” Gephardt stuck with a New Deal-style script that emphasized his decades of political experience. It didn’t work out. Unions were certainly Gephardt’ central base of support, but in Iowa, it appears no one else turned out for him.
What will this mean in New Hampshire? Probably not much. Gephardt has consistently polled in the Granite State in the low single digits. Even if he were to endorse someone immediately, which I think is unlikely, the beneficiary wouldn’t gain a lot of support in New Hampshire anyway. But that’s just one primary in a long race.
Aside from the benefits of having a slightly smaller field of candidates, some candidates are better suited to gain from Gephardt’s departure than others.
Dean may benefit a little because Gephardt has been hammering Dean harder than anyone. When your most aggressive rival goes away, there’s a sense of relief. On the other hand, I get the impression that Gephardt genuinely dislikes Dean and doesn’t want him to get the nomination. I wouldn’t be surprised to hear Gephardt start making “anyone but Dean”-type comments, at least behind-the-scenes.
On a similar note, this creates a downside for Edwards and Clark, both of whom have taken pride in staying positive on the stump, reserving criticism for Bush. It’s been quite effective as voters have grown weary of Dean’s constant negativity. The problem is Edwards and Clark have had the luxury of staying positive because they knew Gephardt was going negative on Dean, bringing the frontrunner down a peg. Gephardt got his hands dirty; Edwards and Clark didn’t have to. If Dean starts to rebound from his failure in Iowa, and Gephardt’s no longer around to take shots at him, Edwards and Clark may be tempted to fill the “Dean criticism void” with unknown consequences.
Kerry seems positioned to pick up some of Gephardt’s institutional support. As the party’s principal House leader for over a decade, Gephardt has earned the backing of dozens of House Dems, including the entire House leadership team (Pelosi, Hoyer, etc.). If those Gephardt backers are basing their support on a Dem with a long congressional history and extensive domestic experience, Kerry is their next likely choice.
Determining where Gephardt’s union support will go is a lot trickier. Kucinich may appear the most ideologically suited to benefit here, but the unions who backed Gephardt are far too politically savvy to back Dennis. Kerry, Lieberman, Dean, and Clark are free-traders, so they’re also less likely to gain here, which leaves Edwards.
In fact, I’d argue Edwards probably benefits better than anyone from Gephardt’s withdrawal. They’ve both been telling similar personal narratives — Edwards’ father worked in a mill, Gephardt’s father drove a milk truck — and both have spent recent years emphasizing trade as a key political issue. I’d be very surprised to see Gephardt endorse Edwards, at least right away, but it seems Edwards is positioned to benefit with or without an official blessing.
And what’s next for Gephardt? He’s not running for re-election to the House, but he’s proven himself an articulate and passionate defender of Democratic ideals, not only in the campaign but throughout his career. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Clark, Kerry, or Edwards, should any of them win the general election, tap Gephardt as a cabinet secretary.