Which Democrat would have done best against Bush in 2004?

fred1451

Banned
What the Democrats needed was someone with a plan 'B', Kerry never seemed to be able to get traction after the Swiftboaters cast doubt on his war record.

Ed Rendell would have been a bad choice, he was a good mayor, and a decent governor, but he always went to higher authority to help bail him out, kind of hard to do as president.
 
I don't know why so many people assume the Democrats "should" have won in 2004 and would have done so with a "better" candidate than Kerry. Most incumbent presidents do get re-elected, especially when the economy is improving, as it was in 2004: unemployment had peaked at 6.3 percent in June 2003 and was down to 5.4 percent by November 2004. https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt George W. Bush's job performance ratings in 2004 weren't great but they weren't terrible; they were roughly comparable to Obama's in 2012. The Republicans still had the advantage on national security due to 9/11; the Iraq war was already losing popularity but was nowhere near as unpopular as it would become by 2006. http://www.gallup.com/poll/1633/iraq.aspx

All in all, what one would expect would be a less-than-overwhelming Bush victory. Which is what happened.
 

fred1451

Banned
I don't know why so many people assume the Democrats "should" have won in 2004 and would have done so with a "better" candidate than Kerry. Most incumbent presidents do get re-elected, especially when the economy is improving, as it was in 2004: unemployment had peaked at 6.3 percent in June 2003 and was down to 5.4 percent by November 2004. https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt George W. Bush's job performance ratings in 2004 weren't great but they weren't terrible; they were roughly comparable to Obama's in 2012. The Republicans still had the advantage on national security due to 9/11; the Iraq war was already losing popularity but was nowhere near as unpopular as it would become by 2006. http://www.gallup.com/poll/1633/iraq.aspx

All in all, what one would expect would be a less-than-overwhelming Bush victory. Which is what happened.
Bush was beatable in 2004, Kerry was not an ideal candidate, but he made it worse on himself in Iowa, that stupid, "I voted for before I voted against", then his limp reaction to the Swiftboat attack, while any two of those would have damaged him, all three together sank him. The sad thing is if he had handled any one of the three well he probably would have won.

I believe that Bush was the first time a president who lost the pop vote and won by the Electoral College won re-election.
 
I believe that Bush was the first time a president who lost the pop vote and won by the Electoral College won re-election.

There had been only three presidents before Bush who had lost the popular vote--J. Q. Adams in 1824, Rutherford Hayes in 1876, and Benjamin Harrison in 1888. And one of them--Hayes--had already pledged during the 1876 campaign to serve a single term (and meant it; he discouraged attempts to draft him for a second term), so we really don't know if he could have won a second term. So it's not exactly a big universe we are talking about...
 
There had been only three presidents before Bush who had lost the popular vote--J. Q. Adams in 1824, Rutherford Hayes in 1876, and Benjamin Harrison in 1888. And one of them--Hayes--had already pledged during the 1876 campaign to serve a single term (and meant it; he discouraged attempts to draft him for a second term), so we really don't know if he could have won a second term. So it's not exactly a big universe we are talking about...

Yeah and Harrison's reelection chances were screwed because of the US's psuedo cold war with Chile in the period he was president.
 

fred1451

Banned
There had been only three presidents before Bush who had lost the popular vote--J. Q. Adams in 1824, Rutherford Hayes in 1876, and Benjamin Harrison in 1888. And one of them--Hayes--had already pledged during the 1876 campaign to serve a single term (and meant it; he discouraged attempts to draft him for a second term), so we really don't know if he could have won a second term. So it's not exactly a big universe we are talking about...
True, but a first is a first.
 
I believe that Bush was the first time a president who lost the pop vote and won by the Electoral College won re-election.

Bush in 2004 did win the popular vote. Like Obama in 2012 Bush was beatable in 2004, but the opposition had the wrong candidate and the wrong message. Going anti-war to the nth degree wouldn't have won the day in 2004 as the media pretty much did that anyway, but people still remembered why they hated Saddam for the most part so the election wasn't going to be won or lost on Iraq unless it was quite a bit worse.

In both instances (2004 and 2012) for the sitting President massive flubs in the first debate cost them what might have been a 7%+ victory margin on Election Day.
 

fred1451

Banned
Bush in 2004 did win the popular vote. Like Obama in 2012 Bush was beatable in 2004, but the opposition had the wrong candidate and the wrong message. Going anti-war to the nth degree wouldn't have won the day in 2004 as the media pretty much did that anyway, but people still remembered why they hated Saddam for the most part so the election wasn't going to be won or lost on Iraq unless it was quite a bit worse.

In both instances (2004 and 2012) for the sitting President massive flubs in the first debate cost them what might have been a 7%+ victory margin on Election Day.
But not in 2000 which is what I was talking about. I agree with that how they phrased Kerry's campaign, and Romney's for that matter, "The guy in the White House is doing a lousy job, I can do better," without really going into details of what they are going to do, has been a losing formula for just about every loosing midterm election in my lifetime. (The only one it wasn't was Bob Dole's, "Bob Dole says Bob Dole isn't Bill Clinton.")


And I'm not really sure that GWB, "Flubbed" that debate, I think his performance was exactly what he wanted it to be.
 

TinyTartar

Banned
The Democrats tried to run on foreign policy. It is always the economy, stupid, that can unseat an incumbent. The economy in 2004 was alright, and the collapse of 2008 was on nobody's radar.

Iraq was not unpopular with the population at large until the Shiite-Sunni Civil War of late 2006 that derailed much of the progress that had been made. And post Surge, Iraq was not incredibly unpopular either. Kerry would have been better off finding another pet issue.

A Democrat who runs on something more tangible than Iraq might find success.
 
Top