No Obama, No Hillary — Who Wins in ‘08?

In a situation where neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama ran for president in 2008, what happens in the Democratic primaries, and then in the general election, and beyond?

Let’s say that HRC doesn’t run for the Senate in 2000 — decides against it for personal reasons, or maybe a high profile NY Democrat steps into the race before they decide to do their Hail Mary pass. What does she do then?

Maybe Obama loses the Democratic senate primary in Illinois, or just doesn’t run.

In any case, imagine a 2008 where neither of them are in high enough office to be considered for president.

If they’re out, Gore runs, right? He’s the highest profile eligible Democrat in 2008, has the Nobel Prize, the hit movie, and the anti-Bush buyer’s remorse factor. So he’s gotta be the frontrunner if he steps in.

But as OTL 2008 showed, being the frontrunner doesn’t always translate to victory. Who is a plausible underdog to upset Gore? The ticking time bomb that is John Edwards will run again, and will presumably improve on his OTL numbers. Could Howard Dean and even John Kerry dip their toes back in the water?

And what about an unexpected dark horse?

Go nuts, folks.
 
I don't think Gore runs. I think Gore was very much done with electoral politics after 2000. He didn't give any sense of re-entering, particularly once he was ensconced in his activism. Indeed if anything Obama was responding to soundings out about Gore not running, not the other way round.

Mark Warner and Evan Bayh would duke it out over the Hillary vote, Russ Feingold might run, though he was not in a good place at that point in time, so maybe not. Biden would do better.
 
Last edited:
So who do you think gets the Deanianc-Obama voters, the younger, more cosmopolitan, more liberal types? Bayh and Warner won’t be getting them. I’m not real familiar with Feingold, though I know he’s at least a bit more left of center than those guys.
 
Kerry runs again, wins the presidency this time. Albeit much closer election than the actual 2008. I could see it being Kerry (290) v McCain (248) with McCain picking up Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia.
 
Edwards has a great shot at Iowa (liberal caucus voters, rewards retail campaigns)… followed by his own campaign nuking him as they were planning to do if he won lol.

Which throws the field into chaos and an AH playground.
 
Edwards has a great shot at Iowa (liberal caucus voters, rewards retail campaigns)… followed by his own campaign nuking him as they were planning to do if he won lol.

Which throws the field into chaos and an AH playground.

There's just no way that Edwards wins, not with the affair hanging around. If the Enquirer didn't find it out, somebody else would have or like you said... his own people scuttle his campaign. I could see him doing a lot better in the primaries without being overshadowed by Obama. All his mill talk was a bit of a precursor to what Trump ran on in 2016.
 
There's just no way that Edwards wins, not with the affair hanging around. If the Enquirer didn't find it out, somebody else would have or like you said... his own people scuttle his campaign.

Ah sorry, I wasn’t clear. His campaign team would have told all if he had won Iowa/NH or so, I didn’t mean the nomination.
 
Tom Daschle
Bill Richardson
Tom Vilsack
John Kerry
Al Gore
Russ Feingold
Evan Bayh

Edwards has his issues...
Biden flopped for a reason.
 
Tom Daschle
Bill Richardson
Tom Vilsack
John Kerry
Al Gore
Russ Feingold
Evan Bayh

Edwards has his issues...
Biden flopped for a reason.


Minus Richardson, that’s awful heavy on the white guys. 2008 was a different time, I know, but would there be someone in there to try to energize a more diverse electorate, a la Obama?
 
Minus Richardson, that’s awful heavy on the white guys. 2008 was a different time, I know, but would there be someone in there to try to energize a more diverse electorate, a la Obama?

I can't think of anybody. Maybe Gary Locke if he didn't withdraw from the public eye following his 2003 state of the union response.

Locke was Washington's fiscally conservative democratic governor and had a reputation/image as being pretty much a boy scout. He'd probably be a decent candidate, especially following the budget mess that Dubya left the country in.
 
The field is going to resemble 1988/1992 (weak). Daschle is probably not included because he lost reelection in 2004 and his failure to launch in the '04 primaries burned bridges. Gore was genuinely not interested, I think. Kerry's comments about vets preclude him from making a serious re-entry. So, who does that leave?

Bayh definitely stays in. Warner might make an entry, but it's not certain. I think Clark might make another entry. That puts the field at Edwards (front runner), Bayh, Biden, Dodd, Gravel, Kucinich, Richardson, and maybe Warner. With a field that weak, it is plausible that a number of people get into the race.

Is there a woman who gets into the race? Maybe Napolitano? Sebelius? They seem to be the only plausible possibilities. Barbara Boxer is unlikely but I suppose possible if she feels the anti-War plank isn't being filled. Speaking of...

The race is missing a prominent anti-War voice. Is that Dean? It seems unlikely given his crash-and-burn four years earlier. Sherrod Brown voted against the resolution. So did Russ Feingold. If none of them get into the race, I would expect Dodd to make some headway as a more prominent candidate given that he is the loudest anti-war voice on the stage (minus Gravel). Additionally, Dodd was running on a number of other progressive issues, including paid family leave and a carbon tax. In the debates, he showed a willingness to go after other candidates, particularly Edwards whom he criticized for leaving Congress while other candidates remained in Congress to do the work needed. He's also the one who didn't let Hillary off the hook during the famed driver licenses debate moment. His campaign was also praised for using social media and the internet in ways other campaigns were not doing. Without Hillary and Obama, the press (and the Democratic establishment) would likely be looking for a contrasting candidate. Dodd may just have turned into that candidate. His friendships with a number of prominent Democratic lawmakers, particularly Kennedy, could translate to endorsements that make him seem more formidable. A Dodd rise is not certain by any means but if a different voice doesn't fill the silence by Obama/Hillary's absence, looking at the field in 2008, it seems that Dodd would fill that realm better than Biden or even Bayh or Richardson.
 
It's a good question. I can't really see most of the OTL non-Hillary/non-Obama field catching on. I think it's true this would be a field very much weighted towards centrist white guys. So there *would* be a vacuum, and it's very possible that Edwards winds up the frontrunner. If he still has his affair and love-child that leads to a pretty disastrous blowup. @Vidal makes a decent case for Dodd, but I have a hard time seeing that.

Of course, absent Hillary and Obama, you'd likely see a much wider field. OTL Mark Warner dropped out (around September 2006) before Obama even announced, but he might stay in. Bayh and Vilsack (both of whom dropped out quickly) would probably have stayed in.

Other possibilities include Phil Bredesen or Dick Durbin. Although there's never been any indication he had presidential ambitions, I wonder if in the absence of Hillary (and later Obama) as the expected "president in waiting" Chuck Schumer might have considered a bid.
 
It's a good question. I can't really see most of the OTL non-Hillary/non-Obama field catching on. I think it's true this would be a field very much weighted towards centrist white guys. So there *would* be a vacuum, and it's very possible that Edwards winds up the frontrunner. If he still has his affair and love-child that leads to a pretty disastrous blowup. @Vidal makes a decent case for Dodd, but I have a hard time seeing that.

Of course, absent Hillary and Obama, you'd likely see a much wider field. OTL Mark Warner dropped out (around September 2006) before Obama even announced, but he might stay in. Bayh and Vilsack (both of whom dropped out quickly) would probably have stayed in.

Other possibilities include Phil Bredesen or Dick Durbin. Although there's never been any indication he had presidential ambitions, I wonder if in the absence of Hillary (and later Obama) as the expected "president in waiting" Chuck Schumer might have considered a bid.

Bredesen is an interesting contender who I hadn't thought about. Most of all, though, I think the field will need a strong anti-war voice. Bayh, Vilsack, Warner, Bredesen - they are all center-left voices who will be looking to challenge Edwards from the center. While Edwards is a rather progressive voice in the context of 2008, the war is a prominent issue in the base that will want a credible candidate to take it on - Gravel and Kucinich seem hardly fit for the role. *maybe* Bernie Sanders decides it's time and runs as an anti-war candidate, but I can't see him appearing to be anything but another Kucinich without an economic message that doesn't work quite the same in the pre-Recession economy.

I recognize Dodd is hardly a clear candidate to take that lane, but the Obama vote has to go somewhere and maybe a lot of them get behind Edwards begrudgingly, but there's a chance for someone else to claim it. Remember that Obama didn't really begin to unify African-American voters until December 2007/his Iowa win. His initial support was rooted in opposition to the war. That's a big portion of the electorate that will feel unrepresented in this field.
 

manav95

Banned
Honestly I think Bill Richardson has appeal to those wanting diversity, and a female candidate like Napolitano or Sebelius could unite feminists and moderates in the party
 
Top