2004- What would have happend if there was diffrent canidates?

[hcallega]

as far as Dean I would say between a 3-5% swing in favor of Bush. He was a good candidate in some ways, awful in others. I think Bush's campaign language would be different and more focused on pounding Dean's remarks on the war rather than how he hit Kerry on personal issues.

If Clark was the nominee it's practically impossible to predict what would happen. On the surface he appears to be a better candidate than Kerry. He was a general, moderate, southerner, etc. But as was made apparent by the '04 primary race he was a very weak campaigner on the trail and was unnable to roll in the big bucks. So it's also possible that he would loose by a wider or simmilar margin.

[Derek]

as far as Dean I would say between a 3-5% swing in favor of Bush. He was a good candidate in some ways, awful in others. I think Bush's campaign language would be different and more focused on pounding Dean's remarks on the war rather than how he hit Kerry on personal issues.

If Clark was the nominee it's practically impossible to predict what would happen. On the surface he appears to be a better candidate than Kerry. He was a general, moderate, southerner, etc. But as was made apparent by the '04 primary race he was a very weak campaigner on the trail and was unnable to roll in the big bucks. So it's also possible that he would loose by a wider or simmilar margin.

He may not have been left wing enough for his party. Plus he joined late. I think Bush would've hammered Clark on the domestic issues. We did have a good economy in 2004 just not in alot of the battleground states.

[Bo]

as far as Dean I would say between a 3-5% swing in favor of Bush. He was a good candidate in some ways, awful in others. I think Bush's campaign language would be different and more focused on pounding Dean's remarks on the war rather than how he hit Kerry on personal issues.

If Clark was the nominee it's practically impossible to predict what would happen. On the surface he appears to be a better candidate than Kerry. He was a general, moderate, southerner, etc. But as was made apparent by the '04 primary race he was a very weak campaigner on the trail and was unnable to roll in the big bucks. So it's also possible that he would loose by a wider or simmilar margin.

He may not have been left wing enough for his party. Plus he joined late. I think Bush would've hammered Clark on the domestic issues. We did have a good economy in 2004 just not in alot of the battleground states.

The economy was in good shape in 2004, but rising fuel prices made many voters feel uncertain about the recovery. Thus, the Democrats could ahve still hammered Bush Jr. over the economy. Not to mention that no new jobs were created in Bush Jr.'s first term.

[Bo]

as far as Dean I would say between a 3-5% swing in favor of Bush. He was a good candidate in some ways, awful in others. I think Bush's campaign language would be different and more focused on pounding Dean's remarks on the war rather than how he hit Kerry on personal issues.

If Clark was the nominee it's practically impossible to predict what would happen. On the surface he appears to be a better candidate than Kerry. He was a general, moderate, southerner, etc. But as was made apparent by the '04 primary race he was a very weak campaigner on the trail and was unnable to roll in the big bucks. So it's also possible that he would loose by a wider or simmilar margin.

For Dean, I think a large focus of the attacks would have been about Dean's lack of foreign policy experience. Bush Jr. would be unable to attack Dean as a flip-flopper, so I think he would want to avoid attacking Dean directly on Iraq, for Dean could then retailate and claim that he had good judgment by opposing this war from the start. TBH, though, I think that attacking Dean's foreign policy credentials would have been enough to make him lose by either the same or a slightly larger margin than Kerry. I agree with what you wrote about Clark.

[Derek]

as far as Dean I would say between a 3-5% swing in favor of Bush. He was a good candidate in some ways, awful in others. I think Bush's campaign language would be different and more focused on pounding Dean's remarks on the war rather than how he hit Kerry on personal issues.

If Clark was the nominee it's practically impossible to predict what would happen. On the surface he appears to be a better candidate than Kerry. He was a general, moderate, southerner, etc. But as was made apparent by the '04 primary race he was a very weak campaigner on the trail and was unnable to roll in the big bucks. So it's also possible that he would loose by a wider or simmilar margin.

For Dean, I think a large focus of the attacks would have been about Dean's lack of foreign policy experience. Bush Jr. would be unable to attack Dean as a flip-flopper, so I think he would want to avoid attacking Dean directly on Iraq, for Dean could then retailate and claim that he had good judgment by opposing this war from the start. TBH, though, I think that attacking Dean's foreign policy credentials would have been enough to make him lose by either the same or a slightly larger margin than Kerry. I agree with what you wrote about Clark.

The entire year you would have heard Bush reminding independents that Dean would allow our troops to be commanded by foreign leaders from the UN. The GOP would argue that it was Dean's way of shrugging off a responsibility that he had no clue about.

[Bo]

as far as Dean I would say between a 3-5% swing in favor of Bush. He was a good candidate in some ways, awful in others. I think Bush's campaign language would be different and more focused on pounding Dean's remarks on the war rather than how he hit Kerry on personal issues.

If Clark was the nominee it's practically impossible to predict what would happen. On the surface he appears to be a better candidate than Kerry. He was a general, moderate, southerner, etc. But as was made apparent by the '04 primary race he was a very weak campaigner on the trail and was unnable to roll in the big bucks. So it's also possible that he would loose by a wider or simmilar margin.

For Dean, I think a large focus of the attacks would have been about Dean's lack of foreign policy experience. Bush Jr. would be unable to attack Dean as a flip-flopper, so I think he would want to avoid attacking Dean directly on Iraq, for Dean could then retailate and claim that he had good judgment by opposing this war from the start. TBH, though, I think that attacking Dean's foreign policy credentials would have been enough to make him lose by either the same or a slightly larger margin than Kerry. I agree with what you wrote about Clark.

The entire year you would have heard Bush reminding independents that Dean would allow our troops to be commanded by foreign leaders from the UN. The GOP would argue that it was Dean's way of shrugging off a responsibility that he had no clue about.

The GOP would probably have said this a lot, but Dean could have reminded voters that he, unlike Bush, is honest and has solid judgment.

[Derek]

as far as Dean I would say between a 3-5% swing in favor of Bush. He was a good candidate in some ways, awful in others. I think Bush's campaign language would be different and more focused on pounding Dean's remarks on the war rather than how he hit Kerry on personal issues.

If Clark was the nominee it's practically impossible to predict what would happen. On the surface he appears to be a better candidate than Kerry. He was a general, moderate, southerner, etc. But as was made apparent by the '04 primary race he was a very weak campaigner on the trail and was unnable to roll in the big bucks. So it's also possible that he would loose by a wider or simmilar margin.

For Dean, I think a large focus of the attacks would have been about Dean's lack of foreign policy experience. Bush Jr. would be unable to attack Dean as a flip-flopper, so I think he would want to avoid attacking Dean directly on Iraq, for Dean could then retailate and claim that he had good judgment by opposing this war from the start. TBH, though, I think that attacking Dean's foreign policy credentials would have been enough to make him lose by either the same or a slightly larger margin than Kerry. I agree with what you wrote about Clark.

The entire year you would have heard Bush reminding independents that Dean would allow our troops to be commanded by foreign leaders from the UN. The GOP would argue that it was Dean's way of shrugging off a responsibility that he had no clue about.

The GOP would probably have said this a lot, but Dean could have reminded voters that he, unlike Bush, is honest and has solid judgment.

Solid judgment like putting our troops in the hands of foreign leaders? Yea that's really solid judgment. Use your judgment and don't post things until you're sure they make sense.

[Bo]

as far as Dean I would say between a 3-5% swing in favor of Bush. He was a good candidate in some ways, awful in others. I think Bush's campaign language would be different and more focused on pounding Dean's remarks on the war rather than how he hit Kerry on personal issues.

If Clark was the nominee it's practically impossible to predict what would happen. On the surface he appears to be a better candidate than Kerry. He was a general, moderate, southerner, etc. But as was made apparent by the '04 primary race he was a very weak campaigner on the trail and was unnable to roll in the big bucks. So it's also possible that he would loose by a wider or simmilar margin.

For Dean, I think a large focus of the attacks would have been about Dean's lack of foreign policy experience. Bush Jr. would be unable to attack Dean as a flip-flopper, so I think he would want to avoid attacking Dean directly on Iraq, for Dean could then retailate and claim that he had good judgment by opposing this war from the start. TBH, though, I think that attacking Dean's foreign policy credentials would have been enough to make him lose by either the same or a slightly larger margin than Kerry. I agree with what you wrote about Clark.

The entire year you would have heard Bush reminding independents that Dean would allow our troops to be commanded by foreign leaders from the UN. The GOP would argue that it was Dean's way of shrugging off a responsibility that he had no clue about.

The GOP would probably have said this a lot, but Dean could have reminded voters that he, unlike Bush, is honest and has solid judgment.

Solid judgment like putting our troops in the hands of foreign leaders? Yea that's really solid judgment. Use your judgment and don't post things until you're sure they make sense.

Solid judgment like opposing a pointless war in Iraq from the start.

[Derek]

as far as Dean I would say between a 3-5% swing in favor of Bush. He was a good candidate in some ways, awful in others. I think Bush's campaign language would be different and more focused on pounding Dean's remarks on the war rather than how he hit Kerry on personal issues.

If Clark was the nominee it's practically impossible to predict what would happen. On the surface he appears to be a better candidate than Kerry. He was a general, moderate, southerner, etc. But as was made apparent by the '04 primary race he was a very weak campaigner on the trail and was unnable to roll in the big bucks. So it's also possible that he would loose by a wider or simmilar margin.

For Dean, I think a large focus of the attacks would have been about Dean's lack of foreign policy experience. Bush Jr. would be unable to attack Dean as a flip-flopper, so I think he would want to avoid attacking Dean directly on Iraq, for Dean could then retailate and claim that he had good judgment by opposing this war from the start. TBH, though, I think that attacking Dean's foreign policy credentials would have been enough to make him lose by either the same or a slightly larger margin than Kerry. I agree with what you wrote about Clark.

The entire year you would have heard Bush reminding independents that Dean would allow our troops to be commanded by foreign leaders from the UN. The GOP would argue that it was Dean's way of shrugging off a responsibility that he had no clue about.

The GOP would probably have said this a lot, but Dean could have reminded voters that he, unlike Bush, is honest and has solid judgment.

Solid judgment like putting our troops in the hands of foreign leaders? Yea that's really solid judgment. Use your judgment and don't post things until you're sure they make sense.

Solid judgment like opposing a pointless war in Iraq from the start.

I'd rather have a war where our troops were led by a commander in chief, especially one who was surrounded by military experience and whose father was even a hero in WWII. If Dean had his way, women would still be oppressed in Iraq.

[Bo]

as far as Dean I would say between a 3-5% swing in favor of Bush. He was a good candidate in some ways, awful in others. I think Bush's campaign language would be different and more focused on pounding Dean's remarks on the war rather than how he hit Kerry on personal issues.

If Clark was the nominee it's practically impossible to predict what would happen. On the surface he appears to be a better candidate than Kerry. He was a general, moderate, southerner, etc. But as was made apparent by the '04 primary race he was a very weak campaigner on the trail and was unnable to roll in the big bucks. So it's also possible that he would loose by a wider or simmilar margin.

For Dean, I think a large focus of the attacks would have been about Dean's lack of foreign policy experience. Bush Jr. would be unable to attack Dean as a flip-flopper, so I think he would want to avoid attacking Dean directly on Iraq, for Dean could then retailate and claim that he had good judgment by opposing this war from the start. TBH, though, I think that attacking Dean's foreign policy credentials would have been enough to make him lose by either the same or a slightly larger margin than Kerry. I agree with what you wrote about Clark.

The entire year you would have heard Bush reminding independents that Dean would allow our troops to be commanded by foreign leaders from the UN. The GOP would argue that it was Dean's way of shrugging off a responsibility that he had no clue about.

The GOP would probably have said this a lot, but Dean could have reminded voters that he, unlike Bush, is honest and has solid judgment.

Solid judgment like putting our troops in the hands of foreign leaders? Yea that's really solid judgment. Use your judgment and don't post things until you're sure they make sense.

Solid judgment like opposing a pointless war in Iraq from the start.

I'd rather have a war where our troops were led by a commander in chief, especially one who was surrounded by military experience and whose father was even a hero in WWII. If Dean had his way, women would still be oppressed in Iraq.

It's not our business if dictators in other countries are oppressing their people. Dean knew that Saddam wasn't an immediate threat to us and thus he had good judgment by opposing the Iraq War from the start. Bush didn't have a lot of military experience and it's irrelevant whether his dad had any or not because his dad wasn't the President back then.

[Derek]

None of our business? If you saw a murder taking place on the street, wouldn't you at least call the cops? I hope you would. Now replace the murderer with Saddam and the one being murdered with an innocent Iraqi. Even though they may not be citizens of the US, they're humans too!

[Bo]

None of our business? If you saw a murder taking place on the street, wouldn't you at least call the cops? I hope you would. Now replace the murderer with Saddam and the one being murdered with an innocent Iraqi. Even though they may not be citizens of the US, they're humans too!

Then how come we didn't invade Sudan? Unlike Saddam, the Sudanese govt. was actually committing a genocide when Bush Jr. was President. And if you're going to talk about human rights, Reagan sold Saddam a lot of WMDs when Saddam was committing genocide. So if you're going to invade one country while ignoring countries that have far worse human rights violations, then you Republicans are just a bunch of hypocrites.

[Derek]

None of our business? If you saw a murder taking place on the street, wouldn't you at least call the cops? I hope you would. Now replace the murderer with Saddam and the one being murdered with an innocent Iraqi. Even though they may not be citizens of the US, they're humans too!

Then how come we didn't invade Sudan? Unlike Saddam, the Sudanese govt. was actually committing a genocide when Bush Jr. was President. And if you're going to talk about human rights, Reagan sold Saddam a lot of WMDs when Saddam was committing genocide. So if you're going to invade one country while ignoring countries that have far worse human rights violations, then you Republicans are just a bunch of hypocrites.

There you go again right out of the playbook.

[Bo]

None of our business? If you saw a murder taking place on the street, wouldn't you at least call the cops? I hope you would. Now replace the murderer with Saddam and the one being murdered with an innocent Iraqi. Even though they may not be citizens of the US, they're humans too!

Then how come we didn't invade Sudan? Unlike Saddam, the Sudanese govt. was actually committing a genocide when Bush Jr. was President. And if you're going to talk about human rights, Reagan sold Saddam a lot of WMDs when Saddam was committing genocide. So if you're going to invade one country while ignoring countries that have far worse human rights violations, then you Republicans are just a bunch of hypocrites.

There you go again right out of the playbook.

I am simply stating facts. It's not my fault a lot of Republican politicians are hypocrites.

[Derek]

None of our business? If you saw a murder taking place on the street, wouldn't you at least call the cops? I hope you would. Now replace the murderer with Saddam and the one being murdered with an innocent Iraqi. Even though they may not be citizens of the US, they're humans too!

Then how come we didn't invade Sudan? Unlike Saddam, the Sudanese govt. was actually committing a genocide when Bush Jr. was President. And if you're going to talk about human rights, Reagan sold Saddam a lot of WMDs when Saddam was committing genocide. So if you're going to invade one country while ignoring countries that have far worse human rights violations, then you Republicans are just a bunch of hypocrites.

There you go again right out of the playbook.

I am simply stating facts. It's not my fault a lot of Republican politicians are hypocrites.

Facts that only tell one side of the story. Facts can be very misleading out of context.

[Bo]

None of our business? If you saw a murder taking place on the street, wouldn't you at least call the cops? I hope you would. Now replace the murderer with Saddam and the one being murdered with an innocent Iraqi. Even though they may not be citizens of the US, they're humans too!

Then how come we didn't invade Sudan? Unlike Saddam, the Sudanese govt. was actually committing a genocide when Bush Jr. was President. And if you're going to talk about human rights, Reagan sold Saddam a lot of WMDs when Saddam was committing genocide. So if you're going to invade one country while ignoring countries that have far worse human rights violations, then you Republicans are just a bunch of hypocrites.

There you go again right out of the playbook.

I am simply stating facts. It's not my fault a lot of Republican politicians are hypocrites.

Facts that only tell one side of the story. Facts can be very misleading out of context.

OK, explain your side of the story then.

[crypto-fascist superhero]

Hypocrisy cuts both ways.

Why do so many Democrats support invading Sudan, an even s**tier country than Iraq, while opposing the Iraq War?

[Bo]

Hypocrisy cuts both ways.

Why do so many Democrats support invading Sudan, an even s**tier country than Iraq, while opposing the Iraq War?

I know that many Democrats are also hypocrites. I don't support invading Sudan, though, and I always opposed the Iraq War. And I was just pointing out that it was hypocritical for Republicans to say that we should have invaded Iraq on humanitarian grounds when certain other countries (Sudan, North Korea, etc.) had worse humanitarian situations back then than Iraq had.

[Californian Tony]

Howard Dean : 52%, 298 EVs
George Bush : 48%, 240 EVs

[Bo]

Howard Dean : 52%, 298 EVs
George Bush : 48%, 240 EVs

I doubt Dean would have won in 2004 considering he had no foreign policy experience (in a foreign-policy centered election year).

[hcallega]

Here are my predictions:

Dean

Bush/Cheney (R): 342 EVs, 54% of the PV
Dean/Vilsack (D): 196 EVs, 44% of the PV

[feeblepizza]

Bush/Cheney 56%, 447 EV's
Dean/Kerry 42%, 91 EV's

[Bo]

Bush/Cheney-300 EV
Dean/Clark-238 EV

[Rockefeller]

Bush/Cheyney-47% of PV; 204 Electoral Votes
H. Clinton/Gephdart-53 of PV; 334 Electoral Votes

Of course this is a "Clinton runs the best campaign she possibly could have" scenario...

[Bo]

Bush/Cheyney-47% of PV; 204 Electoral Votes
H. Clinton/Gephdart-53 of PV; 334 Electoral Votes

Of course this is a "Clinton runs the best campaign she possibly could have" scenario...

I think Hillary could have beat Bush, but she probably wouldn't have won by that kind of margin. Jeb would have probably delivered FL for his big bro, and Bush would have attacked Hillary as an indecisive flip-flopper and inexperienced, which would have somewhat damaged her.