WI: Wesley Clark wins in 2004?

Zioneer

Banned
So I've been playing President Forever, and I decided to play as Wesley Clark in the 2004 scenario. I always read up on whatever politician I decide to play as in President Forever, so I read up on Clark. He seems to have been an exceptionally moderate candidate, so I was wondering that, if he would have been able to avoid gaffes and have more campaign infrastructure (maybe jump into the race a month or two early), could he have seized the Democratic nomination? If so, who would he choose as VP? How would the general election against Bush go? Could Clark win in the general election?
 

Zioneer

Banned
World War III over Georgia maybe.

Why, was Clark a lot more aggressive than Bush in his foreign policy platform (and potentially would be as a president)? I wasn't under the impression that he was foolhardy enough to risk a war with Russia (which is what you're thinking of, right?) I'm not completely enamored of the man either (I'm suspicious of lukewarm centrists), but he doesn't seem like a MacArthur. Even looking at the specific incident you're probably referring to on Clark's Wikipedia page, it doesn't seem more than a one-time thing. The guy gives me the impression that in a way, he'd be less hawkish than Bush.
 
The problem with Wesley Clark is that up until that time he really wasn't a Democrat, and had drifted between the two parties, which harmed his image among Democratic voters; add to this his rather horrid campaign organization and poor decisions and it is understandable as to why his campaign ultimately failed despite his personnel strengths.

However, if John Kerry were to bow out of the race that Fall as I believe he came close to doing, I think most of his support would be driven toward Clark. However since Clark has virtually no infrastructure in Iowa that state would go to John Edwards, which opens a whole new can of butterflies that begin to blur what direction we can expect things to go. In the most basic terms, I think the primaries would end up like this:

genusmap.php

GREEN - Wesley Clark
RED - John Edwards
BLUE - Howard Dean

Basically a stronger primary effort by John Edwards and dissatisfaction by Liberals who remain with Dean until he drops out. Both gain more delegates but Clark still gains the majority of the media attention, thus allowing him to push on through to the nomination. For a running-mate I am not sure who he would pick, but in order to keep things interesting I will say Senator Max Baucus of Montana; had served a significant amount of time in the Legislature, held positions similar to those of Clark, and was also one of his early endorsements. This might drive the more Liberal voters towards Ralph Nader, but they would likely be offset by Independent voters who switch to the Democratic ticket.

I imagine the race would be close but Clark would appeal more to voters in the Center, and thus carry the day. Below is just one the maps I imagine occurring, simply because Clark's major strengths were in the West. It is also the most interesting to me. Almost granted Clark Arkansas as well, but that seemed a bridge too far.

genusmap.php

Wesley Clark (D-AR)/Max Baucus (D-MT): 278 Electoral
George Bush (R-TX)/Dick Cheney (R-WY): 260 Electoral
 
Well, Cheney almost had the USAF bomb the Roki Tunnel and OTL, the USAF flew Georgian troops from Iraq back to Georgia.
OTOH, Clark would likely have at least reevaluated Iraq.
I'm sure that, if CBS does not try to use the anonymous sources, the Bush skipping his NG service story could get more legs. (After all, there was ample evidence that Bush had failed to serve his required term in 1999, when it was first reported by the BBC, of all places.)
 
Why, was Clark a lot more aggressive than Bush in his foreign policy platform (and potentially would be as a president)? I wasn't under the impression that he was foolhardy enough to risk a war with Russia (which is what you're thinking of, right?) I'm not completely enamored of the man either (I'm suspicious of lukewarm centrists), but he doesn't seem like a MacArthur. Even looking at the specific incident you're probably referring to on Clark's Wikipedia page, it doesn't seem more than a one-time thing. The guy gives me the impression that in a way, he'd be less hawkish than Bush.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark#Pristina_International_Airport

General Clark then issued an order for the NATO troops to attack and "overpower" the armed Russian troops, but Captain Blunt leading the British troops questioned this order,[79] and was supported in this decision by the British commander of the Kosovo Force, General Mike Jackson, who refused to sanction the attack, reportedly saying "I'm not going to start the Third World War for you."[80][81]

This shows a lack of judgement that is epic in scale.

EPIC.

EPIC!!



At least MacArthur wanted to start a world war when we would probably win!
 
We go beyond light-speed. :D

(points to whoever gets the reference, as I was literally just researching Clark now for something)
 
I play Clark in '04 all the time. The problem is experience and Bush is going to have a field day over Clark's lack of it.
 

Zioneer

Banned
The problem with Wesley Clark is that up until that time he really wasn't a Democrat, and had drifted between the two parties, which harmed his image among Democratic voters; add to this his rather horrid campaign organization and poor decisions and it is understandable as to why his campaign ultimately failed despite his personnel strengths.

However, if John Kerry were to bow out of the race that Fall as I believe he came close to doing, I think most of his support would be driven toward Clark. However since Clark has virtually no infrastructure in Iowa that state would go to John Edwards, which opens a whole new can of butterflies that begin to blur what direction we can expect things to go. In the most basic terms, I think the primaries would end up like this:

genusmap.php

GREEN - Wesley Clark
RED - John Edwards
BLUE - Howard Dean

Basically a stronger primary effort by John Edwards and dissatisfaction by Liberals who remain with Dean until he drops out. Both gain more delegates but Clark still gains the majority of the media attention, thus allowing him to push on through to the nomination. For a running-mate I am not sure who he would pick, but in order to keep things interesting I will say Senator Max Baucus of Montana; had served a significant amount of time in the Legislature, held positions similar to those of Clark, and was also one of his early endorsements. This might drive the more Liberal voters towards Ralph Nader, but they would likely be offset by Independent voters who switch to the Democratic ticket.

I imagine the race would be close but Clark would appeal more to voters in the Center, and thus carry the day. Below is just one the maps I imagine occurring, simply because Clark's major strengths were in the West. It is also the most interesting to me. Almost granted Clark Arkansas as well, but that seemed a bridge too far.

genusmap.php

Wesley Clark (D-AR)/Max Baucus (D-MT): 278 Electoral
George Bush (R-TX)/Dick Cheney (R-WY): 260 Electoral

Excellent overview, Ariosto, though I'm thinking it would be slightly closer then what you've thought of. I think Clark might be able to take Arkansas, at the cost of Iowa. Though, that might be my penchant for having candidates take their home states talking.

Anyway, so Kerry folds early (maybe Clark or another primary candidate pulls a Swiftboat-style attack on him, or he doesn't do very well in a debate or whatnot), and Clark picks up a bunch of his support, with the rest of the Kerry supporters going to Edwards. Sounds good. But I'm still interested in Clark getting into the race early. If he does that (say mid August instead of September), could that lead to Kerry weakening and falling out of the race?

I'm personally of the opinion that Clark would take a different person as VP; it seems to me that he'd want a younger person than Max Baucus to balance the ticket. Maybe one of his rivals (John Edwards seems like an eternal VP choice) would work.

Oh, and how do we keep Clark from screwing up in answers?


Well, Cheney almost had the USAF bomb the Roki Tunnel and OTL, the USAF flew Georgian troops from Iraq back to Georgia.
OTOH, Clark would likely have at least reevaluated Iraq.
I'm sure that, if CBS does not try to use the anonymous sources, the Bush skipping his NG service story could get more legs. (After all, there was ample evidence that Bush had failed to serve his required term in 1999, when it was first reported by the BBC, of all places.)

That might work; Clark could run on a "I'm a general, I know what I'm talking about, Bush doesn't, he's doing the wars all wrong, he's never really known the military" sort of message, right?

We go beyond light-speed. :D

(points to whoever gets the reference, as I was literally just researching Clark now for something)

Hmm... Clark's comment about believing that we could eventually go beyond light-speed, right?

I play Clark in '04 all the time. The problem is experience and Bush is going to have a field day over Clark's lack of it.

That's true; but could Clark pull an Eisenhower? Could he point out Bush's lack of military experience?
 
After having been relieved of command by Clinton over Yugoslavia Clark won't have much basis for running as level headed or solid in experience...
 
That's true; but could Clark pull an Eisenhower? Could he point out Bush's lack of military experience?

Eisenhower was a huge name famous for his great victories over Nazi Germany.

Clark was somewhat famous for his predictable victory over a bunch of Serbians, and he almost fucked that up with Pristina
 

Zioneer

Banned
After having been relieved of command by Clinton over Yugoslavia Clark won't have much basis for running as level headed or solid in experience...

True, but watching some of Clark's campaign ads, he seems to have been able to overcome that weakness. From what I've read on Wikipedia, he seems to have lost in the primaries due to relatively minor gaffes. So will he really have that hard a time in the general if he avoids gaffes then and in the primary?

Eisenhower was a huge name famous for his great victories over Nazi Germany.

Clark was somewhat famous for his predictable victory over a bunch of Serbians, and he almost fucked that up with Pristina

You're right, of course. But then again, I've always thought that generals should have an easier time with politics; I mean, we've (as in the United States) had at least 5 soldier-Presidents (George Washington himself, Andrew Jackson, Zachary Taylor, Ulysses Grant, Dwight Eisenhower), with several other generals throughout our history being strong political contenders. I guess because Clark had a much more mistake-filled career in a more controversial war, he wasn't as politically strong as the others.

Hmm... if Hugh Shelton or another general doesn't denounce Clark, could he avoid being caught on that issue?
 
Let me make this clear: Clark was a dangerous and stupid man. Why are you brushing off his trying to start a war with Russia?
 
genusmap.php

Wesley Clark (D-AR)/Max Baucus (D-MT): 278 Electoral
George Bush (R-TX)/Dick Cheney (R-WY): 260 Electoral

If Clark won Colorado and Nevada then he'd have won Ohio as well.

But then again, I've always thought that generals should have an easier time with politics; I mean, we've (as in the United States) had at least 5 soldier-Presidents (George Washington himself, Andrew Jackson, Zachary Taylor, Ulysses Grant, Dwight Eisenhower), with several other generals throughout our history being strong political contenders.

You forgot Tippecanoe (but not Tyler too).
 
Let me make this clear: Clark was a dangerous and stupid man. Why are you brushing off his trying to start a war with Russia?

Clark was under direct orders to take control of the airport. Mike Jackson's reaction is what you and I would've done, but it's not what most officers would've done. Even Hugh Shelton, who didn't like Clark, disagreed with Jackson's insubordination. Actually, a lot of people at the Pentagon didn't like Clark, which had a lot more to do with his downfall than his decision to obey Javier Solana's ill-conceived orders. A more popular officer, who would very likely have done the same thing, would've been commanded for his loyalty, international incident be damned.

The idea that a POTUS Clark would've gone out of his way to start a war with Russia is ludicrous.
 

Zioneer

Banned
Clark was under direct orders to take control of the airport. Mike Jackson's reaction is what you and I would've done, but it's not what most officers would've done. Even Hugh Shelton, who didn't like Clark, disagreed with Jackson's insubordination. Actually, a lot of people at the Pentagon didn't like Clark, which had a lot more to do with his downfall than his decision to obey Javier Solana's ill-conceived orders. A more popular officer, who would very likely have done the same thing, would've been commanded for his loyalty, international incident be damned.

The idea that a POTUS Clark would've gone out of his way to start a war with Russia is ludicrous.

Essentially, that's what I'm assuming. That Clark was just trying to follow orders, and though he picked the most monumentally stupid way to go about it, he wasn't trying to start a war with Russia, and that tempers were high anyway (I mean, the Russians seized the airport, for crying out loud, what did they think was going to happen). Besides, one unfriendly encounter with the Russians does not equal wanting to fight Russians all the time; look at his record on other wars; Clark seems to have been a lot more dove-ish on Iraq and even Afghanistan, for example.

Anyway, this thread wasn't intended to be discussing Clark's actions in Kosovo. It's supposed to be figuring out a good PoD for Clark getting the Democratic nomination. It's also supposed to see if Clark had a chance against Bush, and if so, how a national election would play out, as well as how a possible Clark presidency (which would only be one term IMO, because of the recession) would be like.

I'm thinking of writing a TL involving this, but I need to know what PoD would work, what factors need to be considered, and who would be involved in such a change from OTL.

Also, I'm looking at doing a President Forever 2008 scenario where Clark has won, and going from there.
 
You're right, of course. But then again, I've always thought that generals should have an easier time with politics; I mean, we've (as in the United States) had at least 5 soldier-Presidents (George Washington himself, Andrew Jackson, Zachary Taylor, Ulysses Grant, Dwight Eisenhower)

Washington and Jackson had held elective office. o Of the two careers guys and the one partial career, only one (Eisenhower) was an effective president.
 
I always get a little laugh out of the fact that the British officer on the ground at the airport was the (somewhat rubbish) singer James Blunt. Couldn't make it up...
 
Top