Leiberman VS Bush in 2004

Easily. Lieberman was unpopular among Democrats, and would mean they probably didn't have many contenders for the nomination in the first place; maybe it would have been Lieberman running against several fringe candidates. A more successful Iraq War and a popular President Bush could probably clear the field swiftly.

So with that all in mind, I'd guess Lieberman would be swept in anything like a swing state - Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and maybe even Washington and Oregon would have flipped from Kerry to Bush, with the former VP candidate winning mostly in New England and New York & California.
 
Suppose Joe Leiberman had won the DEM nomination in 2004, would Bush still be re-elected?
Congratulations, you have finally found a scenario where I'd vote for Bush.


Lieberman would get crushed, really. He lacks charisma, is a relatively "meh" candidate, and lacks pizazz. He's like Adlai Stevenson without the personality or intelligence. Bush would still suffer from unpopularity, though, but would win more handily against Lieberman unless Lieberman gets a good running mate and empowers himself on issues well enough. But, combine on top of that that he's basically become a latchkey Republican on major issues, and I don't think he really has the stuff to win, nor think he'd be much greater than Bush if he did.
 
Last edited:
Suppose Joe Leiberman had won the DEM nomination in 2004, would Bush still be re-elected?

Hard to say. On the one had, Lieberman would be very attractive to parts of the electorate that leaned Republican in that election, but were otherwise moderate or Democratically inclined.

On the other hand, Lieberman would be viscerally repulsive to a number of core Democratic constituencies and special interest blocs. Senator Lieberman was a quintessential moderate, and unlike Senator Kerry, Clinton, etc was largely unapologetic about his vote(s) and support for the Iraq war authorization and subsequent supplemental funds. It's very, very dangerous for an American presidential candidate to have only soft support of their party's base (See McCain, John; 2008) for a great number of reasons.

Senator Lieberman's candidacy would essentially be a very difficult balancing act. He may capture large numbers of centrists and even Republicans, at the great risk of Democrats defecting to a third party candidate (Angry, rebuffed Howard Dean leads the Democratic wing of the Democratic party! ...Or something.) or simply just staying home on election day. However, attempting to woo the left-wing of the Democratic coalition could gravely undermine Lieberman's moderate reputation, and potentially demonstrate serious contradictions with his record of conduct in the Senate.

On the whole, assuming that Lieberman somehow managed to grab the nomination, he ought to have had at least as good a chance as John Kerry, even with the unique set of disadvantages he possesses.

The elephant in the room (or donkey, in this case) is that Senator Lieberman didn't have a very compelling means by which to acquire the nomination in the first place. I suppose it's just barely possible that if the race breaks down to Howard Dean and Joe Lieberman, the latter could pull off victories in enough primaries with the support of independent voters in the relevant states. That would be a very tough and enervating primary battle though, and probably a bitter one.
 
Lieberman's popular with centrists but I don't think that actually helps him very much. There are a lot of people who describe themselves as moderates or independents, but they tend not to vote for a candidate who truly represents the middle ground: instead they usually go for the guy with a more compelling agenda, better leadership qualities, more charisma, etc. It's less that they're proponents of a specific, moderate ideology (like Lieberman) than that they're non-ideological.

So with that in mind, I don't see them as likely to vote for Lieberman, who is bland, uninspiring, and offering little besides a less-well articulated version of Bush's international agenda. There's domestic stuff, but it's still going to be drowned out by 9/11/Iraq in 2004.
 
Nader will get a lot more votes in 2004...However, this may not change the race as much. While Bush can rely on the religious right, he can't accuse Lieberman of opposing the Bush positions on Iraq and the War on Terror, thus blunting a lot of Bush's attacks.
As a side note, Al Gore may be listened to less, with many Democrats potentially deserting Lieberman.
 
Well this seems borderline ASB, I mean the dems primary talking point in 04 as it was in 08, was being against the war in Iraq, leiberman doesn't have that going for him, so I dunno how he is supposed to win the nomination in the first place.
 
Top