WI: U. S. Senate Election in Illinois, 2004

It's commonly cited that Obama could easily lose the 2004 Senate Election in Illinois if Jack Ryan's divorce controversy doesn't stir things up.

I don't think that's the case myself - Illinois's been a pretty blue state in this age. The seat had been mostly blue in the past, held by Alan J. Dixon and then Carol Mousely-Braun, who might've kept the seat blue if she hadn't run in 1998 against Peter Fitzgerald, despite a strong number of scandals on her part. In addition, despite her scandals, she still lost within 3% to Fitzgerald in 1998.

I don't imagine Obama might've won by the margin he did, but I think he still would've stood a chance.

(This is kind of a general catch-all WI thread for this particular state senate election.)
 
Less of a landslide means Obama doesn't have as much time or money to lend to other candidates. I'm not sure when it was decided he would have the keynote slot, either.
 
He'd easily win, though it would be a lot closer. (Part of the landslide was the choice of Alan Keyes.)
Expect Hillary to get the 2008 nod and Alan Keyes to stay a Republican until 2008, at least.
 
Obama might still be able to score an upset, but as others have said, there is no way he would be campaigning for other candidates, and it is almost certain he does not get the keynote (that was in large part because of his campaigning in other races). He therefore wouldn't have the profile that would allow him to contest the 2008 Presidential nomination, with John Edwards taking the role of chief rival to Hillary Clinton..............though of course he does worse than Obama.

I'm more interested in what would have happened if the Republicans had managed to successfully draft Mike Ditka. :p
 
Ryan's campaign was in trouble before the divorce revelations for a few reasons. Super ficial as it is, his last name caused headaches for the campaign. He happened to share his name with the disgraced former Governor George Ryan, which is why he ran as JackRyan. Secondly, there was that camera scandal that no one remembers because the divorce stuff overshadowed it. Finally, it was a Presidential year, a year in which more Democrats would be expected to vote. Add to this Obama's strength as a campaigner, and Ryan had an uphill climb. Obama was not unbeatable but he had the advantage in the race.
 
Ryan's campaign was in trouble before the divorce revelations for a few reasons. Super ficial as it is, his last name caused headaches for the campaign. He happened to share his name with the disgraced former Governor George Ryan, which is why he ran as JackRyan. Secondly, there was that camera scandal that no one remembers because the divorce stuff overshadowed it. Finally, it was a Presidential year, a year in which more Democrats would be expected to vote. Add to this Obama's strength as a campaigner, and Ryan had an uphill climb. Obama was not unbeatable but he had the advantage in the race.

OTOH Ryan was an excellent candidate in other respects. He had the personal fortune to finance a strong campaign, and his personal credentials, besides his business success, included teaching at a nearly-all-black inner-city Catholic high school.

Obama's far-left associations and voting record would be raw meat for any effective campaign. Bear in mind that even against a joke place-holder like Keyes, he got a smaller % than McCain did in Arizona that year.

Of course the more important WI is if the Republican establishment in Illinois didn't bully Peter Fitzgerald into retiring. Fitzgerald would have mopped the floor with Obama.
 
If Obama loses, I could see him running statewide again, but would he win? I don't see him even running for president if does not have an important office.
 
I still think there were signals that Jack Ryan was not going to run an effective campaign prior to the divorce scandal and indeed the scandal itself demonstrates part of the problem, if you consider how he handled it. And Obama voted his district in Illinois, his record was far from atypical except you could make the case that he did not actually do much as a State Senator. Obama never liked being a legislature and that was as true in Springfield as it was in Washington. In any event his record was not significantly to the left of that of other Democratic State Senators from similar districts. Not saying he could not be sunk, but his voting record is not the key for doing that. I would not under estimate Obama as a campaigner, after all, it is easy to forget now, but his victory in the primary was something of an upset and was not the expected outcome. Amusingly, the divorce thing happened twice. At one point a leading Democratic Candidate lost almost all of his support because of unsealed divorce records.

But that is besides the point, while I think Obama would have won, he would not have been in a position to be keynote speaker, which means today he is not President of the United States. Actually, he might be Mayor of Chicago.
 
OTOH Ryan was an excellent candidate in other respects. He had the personal fortune to finance a strong campaign, and his personal credentials, besides his business success, included teaching at a nearly-all-black inner-city Catholic high school.
Sounds like Meg Whitman to me. And are you saying that Ryan had a chance of snagging the black vote from Barack Obama?

Obama's far-left associations and voting record would be raw meat for any effective campaign.
Then why is he president?

Bear in mind that even against a joke place-holder like Keyes, he got a smaller % than McCain did in Arizona that year.
Yes, a state senator has the same in-state appeal as a senator running for his fourth term. That's not even bringing into account state differences: Obama's victory is the record in all of Illinois history.

Of course the more important WI is if the Republican establishment in Illinois didn't bully Peter Fitzgerald into retiring. Fitzgerald would have mopped the floor with Obama.
Except that he retired because he knew he would lose. Losing political support is not the same as being bullied.

Obama's not losing in 2004, but his path to the presidency most likely just got delayed eight years.
 
What if Jim Edgar's heart stays healthy or is healthier? He avoids the health issues that kept him out of the race in the first place, he runs, and his popularity is sufficient to carry him to victory in November.
 
What if Jim Edgar's heart stays healthy or is healthier? He avoids the health issues that kept him out of the race in the first place, he runs, and his popularity is sufficient to carry him to victory in November.

Jim Edgars is a popular governor because he wasn't a criminal. On the campaign he is a little dull and in the end is an old, white guy. The Republican vote is also receding in Illinois and Obama is very good at what he does. Edgars would loose I think - it'd be similar to Obama vs. McCain.

It all seems to be pointing the same way - Obama is hamstringed a little with a more difficult race, gains less traction in 2008, and we probably see H. Clinton/Obama as the Dem ticket in '08 that wins the White House and Obama is the successor to be in 2016.
 
There is more to Edgar's popularity than simply avoiding a felony, he was Governor at a fairly good point in the state's history, recent though that history may be. And he was pelrceived to have done well while in office. He was massively popular while in office, if his reelection margin, one of the largest in the state's history, is anything to go by. His massive popularity predates Ryan's legal troubles. A large part of it probably has to do with his having been Governor during the 1990's boom.

However, I think you are right that the dynamics of the race favor the President. Edgar would bring name recognition, and for lack of a better term, a nostalgia effect. His popularity is nothing to sneer at, he would be a formidable opponent, on paper at least. Obama would have to work hard to beat him, and his victory would probably be perceived as an upset.

Because Obama is likely to to run a better campaign, because it is a Presidential year, and because it is hard to see Edgar being particularly enthusiastic, Obama is likely to win.

Of course, for much of the race, especially early on, Edgar is likely to poll very well, due to his popularity and the fact that he will be the most well known person running, and that is why I think an Obama victory would be perceived as something of an upset.


Also, if the most popular Republican politician in the state cannot win the race, that really says something about Obama's chances.
 
Also if Obama never gives the speech at the convention, he is not going to be Hillary Clinton's running mate, as he is not going to be a national candidate. Obama never liked being in a legislature, which means he is liable to attempt to run if and when Daley retires ITTL. By 2013, Obama is far more likely to be Mayor than Vice President.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
IOTL, Barack Obama had such an easy Senate race that he spent a considerable portion of our time traveling around the country for fundraisers or to speak on the behalf of other candidates. This raised his profile within the Democratic Party which, in turn, helped win him the coveted keynote speaker's slot at the convention.

If the Ryan scandal never happens (can we call it the "Seven of Nine Scandal"? Pretty please?), then Obama will have to spend pretty much all his time in Illinois running an actual campaign. This opens up a huge horde of potential butterflies.
 
If Jack Ryan wins the Senate election, this butterflies away the Obama Presidency in 2008.

No, it removes the Obama Presidency by knock-on.

A butterfly effect is when the downtime event is improbable, and thus unlikely to happen if any preceding circumstance changes slightly. The conception of a particular child is such an event - because any trivial change can cause a different sperm out of milliona to reach the egg first.

Or the particular soldiers who are shot/not shot in a battle; with millions of bullets flying about, the exact course of each is going to vary.

One can't predict the outcome of a butterfly effect, one can only state that it would be different.

Obama's not being elected is a knock-on of the divergence - a predictable consequence, like one billiard ball striking another, which hits a third.
 
Top