WI: Howard Dean in 2004?

Howard Dean was the campaign favorite, and was even setting the stage for Obama in certain ways like with his grassroots fundraising. However "Yaaaaaaw"-Gate took him down. Granted, that was out of context, since the microphones only picked up him and not the crowd, who were as loud as Dean forcing him to raise his voice that loud, but the way it was presented to the public took Dean down.

So what if that is avoided, and Dean goes on to win the nomination in 2004?
 
He loses. Significantly worse that Kerry.

Recall the reason that the talking heads turned on his was he was considered unelectable.

Kerry, with his military background was considered more electable considering that the nation was in one war and moving to have another.

Now the real difference comes in 2008 where with the Democratic Party, and the nation, having tried of the war, IMO Dean would have had tremendous street cred as being anti-war before it was cool to be anti-war.

WOuld have been interesting to see Dean, Hillary and Obama in a three way race.

In this scenario, Dean competes for some of Obama early support since Hilliary's previous war support gave him some of his best early attacks.


(Sorry if my post has chat overtones. I personally believe the media really oversteped it's role in destroying Dean for an invented reason.)
 
I don't think Dean would have been able to beat Bush. It's very difficult to defeat an incumbent and by 2004, Iraq was still a fairly popular war nationally (the bottom hadn't fallen out like it would in '06) and the economy was showing some signs of improvement (after it struggled in Bush's first three years).

The fact Kerry, who was fairly moderate an even-tempered, couldn't beat Bush, though he did come close, probably suggests not only would Dean lose, but he would lose badly.

I don't think it would be a McGovern-like landslide (hard to imagine Kerry changes the EC THAT much), but it would not have come down to one state like it did in both Bush's election wins.

Dean would have rallied the left, struggled with moderates, but his anti-war message, at a time when Americans weren't necessarily opposed to the war, but the way it was being handled, would have led to a map like this:

genusmap.php


Dean: 185
Bush: 353

Just my guess, though. I think Dean would have failed to win a state Kerry lost, though, I guess, since Vermont was a neighbor to NH that it's possible he wins there (and might play better in, say, Colorado & New Mexico). But still, if I had to guess, I say he loses Wisconsin (Kerry narrowly won it), New Hampshire, Michigan (Kerry narrowly won it), Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

But who knows.

For full disclosure, even though I wasn't of voting age back in '04, I worked and supported Dean's campaign. So, no hate for the governor, I just think it would have been very difficult to win (any Democrat, really, would have struggled to beat Bush in '04 - just as the Republicans will struck to beat Obama in '12 - it's the nature of the game).
 

JoeMulk

Banned
I actually think that Dean would have done better then Kerry and had a better shot at winning because he was more exciting and provided a clearer contrast with Bush on foreign policy. Nobody could accuse Dean of being a flip flopper.
 
I actually think that Dean would have done better then Kerry and had a better shot at winning because he was more exciting and provided a clearer contrast with Bush on foreign policy. Nobody could accuse Dean of being a flip flopper.

I concur.

Dean unlike Kerry was inspiring, and motivated the Democratic base. Dean lost because Kerry sucessfully made the argument that he was more electable on account of his military experience, and Daschle exhausted his war-chest doing a kamikaze attack on Dean in Iowa.

The funny thing about Kerry's electability, is that Rove countered it by attacking and diminishing Kerry's strengths. Kerry's military record was for all intents and purposes worthless after the swift boat attacks. Because Kerry was so uninspiring, and because Kerry ran such a safe campaign (ie only focusing on the Gore states and Florida), he narrowly loss to Bush.

Dean was more liable to make mistakes. However Dean was a much more charismatic figure, and someone would could both dodge the label of flip-flopper while running a stronger national campaign. Bush would be forced to divide his resources rather than being free to dump all of his money into Florida and Ohio.
 
While I think Dean was a stronger candidate than Kerry, I doubt that he would be able to defeat Bush. For all of his likability, every-man appeal, and eclectic ideology (anti-war, socially liberal, deficit hawk, pro-gun), he was still perceived as very liberal and too anti-war. His lack of clear religious views also hurts. Dean would have attacked Bush vociferously, but would have been painted by Rove as out of touch with Middle America, too liberal, and too inexperienced to be President. He also would have taken a page out of the Nixon Playbook and attempt to position Bush as a representative of the "Silent Majority," portraying Dean as representative of a small liberal elite. It would take a lot for Dean to win, though not impossible. Interestingly, Dean probably accelerates the new Democratic strategy of whistling past Dixie/the Rust Belt and instead focusing on the Sun Belt and upper South.
 
H. Clinton (and possibly Gore) are the only ones that would've defeated Bush in 2004.

I do think Dean would've done better than Kerry because Kerry was an uninspiring, boring man
 
While I like Dean, I just can't see him beating Bush in 2004. Rove would play up the idea that he was too-liberal and out of touch due to his position on the Iraq War. Whatever his record as governor, his anti-war stance in 04' would've been enough to sell that image to the majority of America. The majority hadn't tired of the war yet.

Not a Bush landslide, but still a somewhat stronger Republican victory with Bush getting 1-2% more of the popular vote.

genusmap.php


Dean: 217
Bush: 321

Just as people say the 84' election was held too late for Mondale to win, the 04' election was too early for Dean to win.
 
Last edited:
I remember being there in the millenial age. The tide was already turning before the election of 2004 against Bush and Iraq, and if you think Bush was hard to beat, you're very wrong. Bush being a dummy, a violator of civil liberties, someone to dislike and all that was already out there by 2004, and the lead up to the 2004 election, and would just build up even more when he got another term. It's not like things took a sudden nose dive after 2004; I see that claim touted a lot. Things were already going downhill, support already softening or running the other direction, leading up to 2004, which is why a lot of people were shocked when Bush did win. It may not have been as extreme as when he finally left office where everyone hated him, but it was still palpable to the point where at least (or a bit over) half of everyone hated him.

So Bush was always on shaky ground in 2004. And frankly, Dean could beat him if he avoids a gaffe. What good did Kerry do? They swift boated him, and pulled off every sleazy thing they could with his military service, so what did it matter? Kerry was boring. People wanted JFK, he was Adlai Stevenson. He couldn't inspire, or make anyone care, or get a message across because he wouldn't hit things on the head, and just droned on. And he flip flopped. He was like running a dead fish. And he still came extremely close to the White House.
Put someone like Dean out there, someone with that passion, I think he'd win, or at least come damn close.
 
I think Dean would get the same result as Kerry really. He's more exciting to the base and increases their turnout, but alienates conservative independents more. IMO, this will help the Dems in the congressional races.
 
I remember being there in the millenial age. The tide was already turning before the election of 2004 against Bush and Iraq, and if you think Bush was hard to beat, you're very wrong. Bush being a dummy, a violator of civil liberties, someone to dislike and all that was already out there by 2004, and the lead up to the 2004 election, and would just build up even more when he got another term. It's not like things took a sudden nose dive after 2004; I see that claim touted a lot. Things were already going downhill, support already softening or running the other direction, leading up to 2004, which is why a lot of people were shocked when Bush did win. It may not have been as extreme as when he finally left office where everyone hated him, but it was still palpable to the point where at least (or a bit over) half of everyone hated him.

So Bush was always on shaky ground in 2004. And frankly, Dean could beat him if he avoids a gaffe. What good did Kerry do? They swift boated him, and pulled off every sleazy thing they could with his military service, so what did it matter? Kerry was boring. People wanted JFK, he was Adlai Stevenson. He couldn't inspire, or make anyone care, or get a message across because he wouldn't hit things on the head, and just droned on. And he flip flopped. He was like running a dead fish. And he still came extremely close to the White House.
Put someone like Dean out there, someone with that passion, I think he'd win, or at least come damn close.

I certainly don't think Bush was impossible to beat. I agree he was a dummy and many of his actions were questionable. I was there too and I certainly remember wishing he'd lose. I just think between the advantages of incumbance, not wanting to change leaders in the middle of a war, and aggressive attack ads by the Republicans, he does seem to have an advantage. Maybe its a sign of how cynical I've become?

Then again, maybe Dean would've responded to the attack ads against him better than Kerry did? Maybe I'm overestimating how many people would've ate up the liberal elitist argument in 04'? Maybe it's where I lived too. I was living in a fairly conservative area and I remember the majority of people being Bush supporters. That might've colored my perceptions of politics from that time.

I would certainly have liked Dean to get the nomination as he was definitely more exciting than Kerry. Maybe that would've counterbalanced whatever advantage Rove's attacks would've done? In any case, I agree he would've been a better candidate and certainly a better President than Bush.
 
Last edited:
The 2004 election was pretty close-it wouldn't take much to flip it in the Dem's favour.

If Dean gets the nomination, he probably enspires the base (and dem voters) a lot more. I guess it depends on how the war (the main thing he campaigns on) is going at the time.

Also, who's his running mate? that could be crucial re his chances in the election.

If he loses in 2004 (and I personally think he would), I can definetly see people looking at his candidacy with greater fondness than Kerry's "if only we'd have elected Dean, he'd have stopped the war in Iraq and the economy wouldn't be as bad" etc. Could this nostalgia carry him through to the nomination again in 2008?
 
Dean's campaign unraveled for three principal reasons. First, the campaign wasn't managed well from a financial perspective; while great sums were raised, there was no discipline in spending. Second, he lost Iowa after getting into an air war pi**ing match with Gephardt that turned off voters and caused them to turn to Kerry and Edwards. Third, his campaign peaked too early -- by the end of December he had Gore's endorsement and was the frontrunner. The first and third are somewhat interrelated, as the early frontrunner status reinforced the lack of fiscal discipline at the HQ in Burlington. Had Dean perhaps gotten off to a bit slower start with diminished expectations for the early states, he might have done better than he did. For one thing, a slower start might have avoided the confrontation with Gephardt in Iowa that did him in.

Assuming he could have won the nomination, and I don't think that's all that implausible, he had a fighting chance to win against Bush. For one thing, for all the perceived liberalism about him, he had an excellent track record on fiscal issues as Governor that would have appealed to swing voters and he certainly would have inspired more enthusiasm among Democratic base voters than Kerry did. There was little that was inevitable about Bush's 2004 victory OTL -- it was a close election even with Kerry, who was very much a flawed candidate. The path for Dean to win involved either flipping Ohio or coming up with wins in Nevada, New Mexico and Iowa. All those states were close in OTL 2004.

Of course, if Dean won, he'd likely be in big trouble in 2008 unless there was enough of a policy shift to avoid the worst of the financial crisis. We are likely to see an earlier exit from Iraq and, with all the GOP congressional scandals that came out, a good chance of a Democratic win in the 2006 midterms as in OTL. Even if he did lose reelection in 2008, there's one big and lasting change: the Supreme Court. No Roberts and no Alito means in all likelihood, no Citizens United decision. We might have wound up with President McCain in 2008, but had he won, 2012 might well be up for grabs with a poor, sluggish recovery. We might well be seeing the epic Obama-Clinton 2008 primary playing out in 2012.
 
Top