Likely Democratic nominee in 2004 sans 9/11 attacks?

Who's the most likely Democrat to get the presidential nomination in 04, minus 9/11?

  • John Kerry

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • John Edwards

    Votes: 5 13.5%
  • Howard Dean

    Votes: 5 13.5%
  • Dick Gephardt

    Votes: 12 32.4%
  • Wes Clark

    Votes: 1 2.7%
  • Bob Graham

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Dennis Kucinich

    Votes: 1 2.7%
  • Carol Moseley Brown

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Al Sharpton

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Bob Graham

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Joe Lieberman

    Votes: 1 2.7%
  • Al Gore

    Votes: 12 32.4%
  • Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    37
Inspired by Vultan's 'WI No 9/11' thread. Who do you think would be the likeliest, of the following, as the Democratic Presidential Nominee in 2004. Remember, no 9/11 means that the economy, not foreign policy or terrorism, is the lead issue in the campaign.

John Kerry: Unlikely. No War on Terror probably puts someone like Kerry, chosen in large part because of his foreign policy gravitas, low on the list for Democratic primary voters.

John Edwards: Strong possibility. Economic populism is going to be a good move for the Democrats in an unhealthy economic environment. Probably will have to balance the ticket with a more conservative, northern Democrat.

Howard Dean: Very Unlikely. No Iraq War means that Dean's campaign (if it's even begun) probably doesn't catch on. Dean is probably seen as an 'also ran'.

Wes Clark: Very Unlikely. The Iraq War, IIRC, was the key reason Clark even entered the Presidential race four years ago. Without it, and without significant foreign policy threats abroad, I doubt Clark even puts his hat in the ring, so to speak.

Dennis Kucinich: Impossible. Probably runs well among liberal activists, as usual, but won't win a primary, as IOTL. Drops out early on.

Al Sharpton: Impossible. See 'Dennis Kucinich'.

Joe Lieberman: Unlikely. If Al Gore decides not run and Joe Lieberman does, he probably does well with national security voters, but no one else. Without that distinction as a centerpoint of the campaign, he probably [a] doesn't enter or gets clobbered as IOTL.

Dick Gephardt: Possible. Probably preforms stronger than IOTL, because of the economic situation and his folksy, populist image. If he's Speaker of the House IATL, then all the better against Edwards and the others.

Carol Moseley Braun: Impossible. See 'Dennis Kucinich, Al Sharpton'.

Bob Graham: Possible, but it's just as likely his campaign does a nosedive at the outset, as IOTL. IIRC, Graham was also running chiefly on 'National Security', which might not be poignant enough to put him ahead in a 'No 9/11' TL.

Al Gore: Extremely possible. Outside of Edwards, Gore is the strongest candidate here. No 9/11 probably makes him more likely to run, and he can quickly associate himself with the Clinton administration's economic record and criticize the Bush administration for economic malfeasance and high prices at the pump.

Poll forthcoming. Other opinions?
 
So Gore pulls a Nixon? ;) I think Bush can win against Gore or Edwards, because Edwards didn't really have a legislative record to speak of IIRC, mostly biography. Also rather liberal for a SoDem, unlike Gore. Karl will have a lot of *fun* with Edwards. IIRC what Edwards was trying to do was set himself up as a Southern RFK, as oxymoronic as that sounds. The ruthless prosecutor defending the little guy. Problems: no executive experience, no legislative record, no Name. Also: Minority Coalition works best for Catholic pols, and Edwards ain't Catholic. That's before we get into betraying his wife who happens to be afflicted with terminal cancer and having a child out of wedlock with the other woman.

Re nomination: it would be Gore-Gephardt, because you cover the bases of labor, parts of the South, suburbs and working-class people.
 
Last edited:

Penelope

Banned
I think it would be Gephardht - Edwards. I seriously doubt that Al Gore gets as good of a preformance, 4 years after his Vice Presidency, let alone running.
 
Something like this...

genusmap.php


(D) 283

(R) 255

President-elect: Dick Gephardt (D)
 
It wouldn't be that close. No September 11th and a lagging economy are likely to produce a small landslide, like we saw last year. (Small as in the 53-55% range; not the 56-60% burial range)
 
Somewhat easier because Gephardt doesn't have baggage that Karl can put to devastating effect. It depends if the economy is still in recession.
 
Somewhat easier because Gephardt doesn't have baggage that Karl can put to devastating effect. It depends if the economy is still in recession.

IOTL, the economy was still in recession in 2004. One of the reasons that Bush's victory was much smaller than it otherwise might have been.
 

Penelope

Banned
Likely, it would be this.

Gephardt / Edwards - 305 EVs
Bush / Cheney - 233 EVs

genusmap.php


Incumbent President: George W. Bush (R)

President-Elect: Richard A. Gephardt (D)
 

Thande

Donor
Gore's a possibility, I remember back in 2003 or so there was speculation he might run before he ruled himself out, and that was with 9/11 changing policy objectives.

Also agree on Edwards,

Basically expect a very boring, very mainstream centrist.
 

Penelope

Banned
You have the colours wrong on either map or key...

On the key. I still used the Modern Day coloration for the key, but I had to use the 'old-days-of-yor' scheme for the map. Alas, if only Dave Leip had as much time on his hands as I... ;)
 
Well, if there is no economy, the economic 1990's boom would continue at least till 2005-2006. Bush would probably win again, considering that the memory of Bush will top the memory of Gore's VP. Also, with no 9/11, no Patriot Act, which means less angry liberals at the Bush Administration. No Iraq War also means less anger to the Bush Administration.


Probably something like this...

Bush/Cheney- 290
Gore/Edwards- 248

New Hampshire would go to Bush like in 2000, the vote in North Carolina and Tennessee would be very close and possibly a similar situation as in 2000 where the real results aren't known for a few days, because those two states would decide the winner.

If Bush could win either of the two, he would still win. Probably a 51%/49% vote Bush/Gore.

I could also see more Republicans sweeping the House, with the Republicans not being seen as War Criminals by many Dems.
 
I only see Iowa and New Mexico flipping, because all the others excluding Ohio were won by more than 5% IOTL.

What about Florida? Margin was a few hundred thousand IOTL, but that isn't insurmountable. Plus, there would be a little irony in it...

Well, if there is no economy, the economic 1990's boom would continue at least till 2005-2006. Bush would probably win again, considering that the memory of Bush will top the memory of Gore's VP. Also, with no 9/11, no Patriot Act, which means less angry liberals at the Bush Administration. No Iraq War also means less anger to the Bush Administration.


Probably something like this...

Bush/Cheney- 290
Gore/Edwards- 248

New Hampshire would go to Bush like in 2000, the vote in North Carolina and Tennessee would be very close and possibly a similar situation as in 2000 where the real results aren't known for a few days, because those two states would decide the winner.

If Bush could win either of the two, he would still win. Probably a 51%/49% vote Bush/Gore.

I could also see more Republicans sweeping the House, with the Republicans not being seen as War Criminals by many Dems.

No.

No 9/11 attacks is almost certainly a huge blow to the GOP. the 2002 midterms are going to bite them in congress, and Bush's approval rating is going to continue falling. remember, although the wars in afghanistan and iraq were already controversial, public opinion wasn't nearly so far opposed to them as it would, say, two years later. No war on terror means the focus is going to be on the economy, and the economy tanked during the bush years, and i don't think he can pull off a recovery in time to reverse things (he didn't IOTL). In short, this is a republican incumbent running for reelection during a recession that he will be viewed as responsible for. Not a good set of circumstances.



One thought about the primaries. Gore and Edwards obviously have the best arguments going for them. Gore is a known quantity, and this time around stands a good chance of knocking off Bush. Edwards represents the populist branch of the party, may been seen as stronger in the south (which seems odd, when you consider gore's home state), and offers a message of change (where have I heard that before?), although probably tempered by clinton nostalgia.

So gephardt is going to be the democratic nominee.

What am I basing this on? Nothing, really, aside from gut feeling and intuition. But we've seen a lot of instances of early frontrunners crashing out of the starting gate during primary season, a several times when two heavyweights manage to cancel out each other's opportunities, and a number of election cycles where a second-tier candidate or one presumed out of the race manages to stage a comeback. So could Gephardt squeeze through between Gore and Edwards, or at least muscle his way into the VP slot? Maybe.

Finally, one or two thoughts. The democratic field is probably going to look rather different without 9/11 and the aftermath (ex: kerry may not run, clark certainly wont, although lieberman probably does). Who else might step into the fray? Daschle or Dodd, perhaps? Does Dean run, or somebody else espousing similar ideas? This may be the most important question: what happen's to Dean's supporters, and does anybody come up with the same campaigning strategies that he employed.
 
Last edited:
I say a 2004 election with Gore as the Democratic nominee might go something like this, depending on how bad the economy is and how differently Gore campaigns compared to four years previous. I just have Edwards as his running mate cuz he's the first one that came to mind (I was thinking of Bob Graham too, but he'd be too old, IMHO)

genusmap.php


Al Gore/John Edwards: 399 EV
George W. Bush/Dick Cheney: 139 EV

I'm not sure about the popular vote, but it might be a margin similar to Bush in '88 or Obama last year.
 

Penelope

Banned
I say a 2004 election with Gore as the Democratic nominee might go something like this, depending on how bad the economy is and how differently Gore campaigns compared to four years previous. I just have Edwards as his running mate cuz he's the first one that came to mind (I was thinking of Bob Graham too, but he'd be too old, IMHO)

genusmap.php


Al Gore/John Edwards: 399 EV
George W. Bush/Dick Cheney: 139 EV

I'm not sure about the popular vote, but it might be a margin similar to Bush in '88 or Obama last year.

Arizona, Colorado, North Carolina, and Virginia will not go for Gore in this scenario. That wasn't possible in 2004, there was simply just a different political scenario, and not even no 9/11 can make Gore get those states in 04.
 
Well, even with no 9/11, Bush may try and go after Iraq. Look how quickly they tried it in OTL- and Bush bombed Iraq even before then! (And, let's face it, most Republicans would paint Democrats as hypocrites if they voted for going after Iraq under Clinton and not under Bush.) Of course, if Bush goes after Iraq, people may be a bit more likely to listen to Blix, El Baradei, Ritter, and the ghost of Hussein Kamil...and the aforementioned unlikely choices may become a bit more likely... (Especially if someone goes after Kerry for his support of the war...)

In other news, has anyone thought that Biden or Clinton could join in the 2004 race?
 

Penelope

Banned
Well, even with no 9/11, Bush may try and go after Iraq. Look how quickly they tried it in OTL- and Bush bombed Iraq even before then! (And, let's face it, most Republicans would paint Democrats as hypocrites if they voted for going after Iraq under Clinton and not under Bush.) Of course, if Bush goes after Iraq, people may be a bit more likely to listen to Blix, El Baradei, Ritter, and the ghost of Hussein Kamil...and the aforementioned unlikely choices may become a bit more likely... (Especially if someone goes after Kerry for his support of the war...)

In other news, has anyone thought that Biden or Clinton could join in the 2004 race?

Not in '04. Biden wouldn't even come close to winning if he did run, and Clinton, well... It's a bit too soon for her. Also, I seriously doubt that Bush would invade Iraq. Even a man as thick as him knows that it would be horrific politically.
 
Not in '04. Biden wouldn't even come close to winning if he did run, and Clinton, well... It's a bit too soon for her. Also, I seriously doubt that Bush would invade Iraq. Even a man as thick as him knows that it would be horrific politically.

He'd definitely make grumbles about it. There's good reason to believe that the invasion of Iraq IOTL was Bush's desire for a 'splendid little war' to boost his own approval ratings, which were descending from the stratosphere as the nation again shifted it's attention to the failing economy after 9/11.
 
Top