Let's say that the 22nd Amendment says that presidents can only serve two consecutive terms. Neither Eisenhower or Reagan run in 1964 or 1992. In 2004, former President Clinton announces a run against Bush, claiming to have the experience required to take America out of 9/11 and the Iraq War. Would anyone major run against him? How would he do against Bush? Would his health problems hurt his campaign? If he does win, how does his administration go?
WI: Bill Clinton vs. George W. Bush 2004
- Thread starter Oppo
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 2004 bill clinton third term
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
very much like the premise of a modified 22nd Amendment
Looking at presidential elections from 2000 to present, I think the baseline is that Democrats tend to win or get very close.
Now that's interesting!
Some things to ponder, though:
I wonder who would run in the Democratic primaries. Would there have been candidates running already when he entered the race or did many sit it out once a Bill'04 became an early presumption. I think Dean would still run, but Kerry might sit it out, maybe.
Actually, was Clinton even popular enough IOTL in 2002/2003 to pull off such a run? He'd have to have enough support to win the nomination.
Also, whom would he pick to be his running mate? Dean? Kerry? Edwards? Barbara Boxer? Bob Graham? Gary Locke? Evan Bayh? (I really don't know).
How would such a campaign work with his wife currently serving in the US Senate?
Bill Clinton had health issues in 2005. Would they been worsened by a 2003-2004 campaign and occur in the fall campaign?
One more thing, I can easily see GWB simply bringing up Monica, or even accusing the Clinton administration of dropping the ball when it came to foreign policy and causing 9/11 to eventually occur.
Personally, I think it would be a very narrow race, maybe even closer than OTL's 2004, but ultimately GWB would win re-election.
Some things to ponder, though:
I wonder who would run in the Democratic primaries. Would there have been candidates running already when he entered the race or did many sit it out once a Bill'04 became an early presumption. I think Dean would still run, but Kerry might sit it out, maybe.
Actually, was Clinton even popular enough IOTL in 2002/2003 to pull off such a run? He'd have to have enough support to win the nomination.
Also, whom would he pick to be his running mate? Dean? Kerry? Edwards? Barbara Boxer? Bob Graham? Gary Locke? Evan Bayh? (I really don't know).
How would such a campaign work with his wife currently serving in the US Senate?
Bill Clinton had health issues in 2005. Would they been worsened by a 2003-2004 campaign and occur in the fall campaign?
One more thing, I can easily see GWB simply bringing up Monica, or even accusing the Clinton administration of dropping the ball when it came to foreign policy and causing 9/11 to eventually occur.
Personally, I think it would be a very narrow race, maybe even closer than OTL's 2004, but ultimately GWB would win re-election.
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
in OTL 2004, I think Kerry was a quality candidate and ran a quality campaign.
His original plan was not to begin the general election campaign until after (?) Labor Day in order to fully tap into matching funds, something like this. His mistake was sticking with this plan even after the very inaccurate 'Swift Boat' accusations began coming out.
All the same, 2004 was a closer election than people tend to remember.
His original plan was not to begin the general election campaign until after (?) Labor Day in order to fully tap into matching funds, something like this. His mistake was sticking with this plan even after the very inaccurate 'Swift Boat' accusations began coming out.
All the same, 2004 was a closer election than people tend to remember.
Clinton is if nothing else brilliant politician who can read the tea leaves as well as anyone else.
By the nature of the Democratic base at the time he's going to adopt an adversarial position towards Bush foreign policy-particularly where Iraq is concerned. He'll presumably fall somewhere around where Kerry did.
Unless Iraq goes completely differently the Democrats would not enthusiastically support a pro-war nominee. Clinton's smart enough to know that.
The campaign will then amount to an argument over who was more responsible for the failure to prevent 9/11. As it was right wing media repeatedly blamed Clinton-add a political campaign to that and that argument goes into overdrive.
By the nature of the Democratic base at the time he's going to adopt an adversarial position towards Bush foreign policy-particularly where Iraq is concerned. He'll presumably fall somewhere around where Kerry did.
Unless Iraq goes completely differently the Democrats would not enthusiastically support a pro-war nominee. Clinton's smart enough to know that.
The campaign will then amount to an argument over who was more responsible for the failure to prevent 9/11. As it was right wing media repeatedly blamed Clinton-add a political campaign to that and that argument goes into overdrive.