Was Kerry the most electable candidate in '04 after all?

[pragmatic liberal]

Was John Kerry the most electable Democrat in 2004 after all?

Remember that in '04, Bush was always the slight favorite: his approval ratings were around 50% and the election took place in the shadow of 9-11. The Iraq War had not yet received majority-disapproval and the economy, while not great, was generally adequate throughout most of the country. Also, the gay marriage issue was big with religious voters. And though Bush was polarizing, his approval ratings among Republican-leaners and conservatives were actually higher than Ronald Reagan's were in '84.

Which Democrat would have done better? All had their selling points, but I'm inclined to say that the rest had weaknesses that would have made them worse general-election candidates.

Dick Gephardt -- A classic paper-candidate. On paper, he would look like the best one, with prospects of sweeping the Mid-West. However, Gephardt failed to excite anyone and his poor performance in the primaries (4th in Iowa), almost certainly reflected an inability to connect. In-state results don't take place in a vacuum: if Gephardt underperformed nationally, he would not have carried Ohio. And the flip-flop charges were even stronger with Gephardt than with Kerry -- Gephardt was an ardent supporter of the war early on and had flipped on numerous issues throughout his career.

Joe Lieberman -- Ha! Democratic turnout would have been depressed and he would not have challenged Bush on the key issue of the election -- the war or terrorism. Bush likely wins a comfortable victory after what Lieberman calls a "civil, respectful" campaign.

Howard Dean -- He had more passionate support among activists and he was right on the war. Maybe his stronger contrast with Bush would have been enough to put him over the top. My own sense, though, is that he would have been easily branded (unfairly) as a far-lefty, and he'd likely have lost by 5-6 points nationally. Bush would have gotten well over 300 electoral votes.

John Edwards -- He and Wes Clark are the two candidates who one can most credibly argue would have done better than Kerry. Edwards was more charismatic, easier to relate to, and more likeable. He would have likely focused on economic issues and on the war attacked the execution, not the decision. That, however, would have angered liberals which might have depressed some Democratic turnout. Edwards had a tendency also to underperform at crucial moments (his terrible VP acceptance speech, his debate with Cheney) and he would have been trying to change the subject in a national-security election. And on national security, he would have been hard-pressed to make a strong case.

Maybe had he picked Wes Clark or retired Gen. Merrill McPeak as his running mate he could have won. However, the likely ticket would have been Edwards-Kerry, and I don't know that it would have done any better than Kerry-Edwards -- in fact, it may have done worse. (Although maybe Edwards would have done less poorly in the South, possibly saving the Democrats one or two Senate seats like NC and FL, even if he didn't win those states.)

Wes Clark -- With Clark, the issue would have been political inexperience. His primary campaign was chaotic and he would have likely made several rookie mistakes. Also, he had several enemies in the form of other retired generals like Gen. Hugh Shelton, who would have almost certainly have formed the basis of a (more credible) Swift-Boaters-type attack. He would likely have lost similar to Kerry. Did Kerry at least have the potential to do better than he did? I think so.

(Oh, and the less said about Bob Graham, the better.)

On balance, I think Kerry may have been the best all-around candidate that year. No, he wasn't strongest in any one area, but he was acceptable to both liberals and conservatives, generally was acceptable to Iraq War opponents because though he supported the war, he was more critical of the aftermath than many of the others, he had national security experience and he had experience in public service. And though he wasn't very charismatic, he was moreso than arguably Joe Lieberman or Dick Gephardt were.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I suspect Edwards and Clark were more electable than Kerry. Edwards mostly.

[WillK]

Seems like good analysis, though I have a more favorable view of Clark and a less favorable view of Edwards.  I think a Clark-Dean ticket might have been interesting. 

Was John Kerry the most electable Democrat in 2004 after all?

Remember that in '04, Bush was always the slight favorite: his approval ratings were around 50% and the election took place in the shadow of 9-11. The Iraq War had not yet received majority-disapproval and the economy, while not great, was generally adequate throughout most of the country. Also, the gay marriage issue was big with religious voters. And though Bush was polarizing, his approval ratings among Republican-leaners and conservatives were actually higher than Ronald Reagan's were in '84.

Which Democrat would have done better? All had their selling points, but I'm inclined to say that the rest had weaknesses that would have made them worse general-election candidates.

Dick Gephardt -- A classic paper-candidate. On paper, he would look like the best one, with prospects of sweeping the Mid-West. However, Gephardt failed to excite anyone and his poor performance in the primaries (4th in Iowa), almost certainly reflected an inability to connect. In-state results don't take place in a vacuum: if Gephardt underperformed nationally, he would not have carried Ohio. And the flip-flop charges were even stronger with Gephardt than with Kerry -- Gephardt was an ardent supporter of the war early on and had flipped on numerous issues throughout his career.

Joe Lieberman -- Ha! Democratic turnout would have been depressed and he would not have challenged Bush on the key issue of the election -- the war or terrorism. Bush likely wins a comfortable victory after what Lieberman calls a "civil, respectful" campaign.

Howard Dean -- He had more passionate support among activists and he was right on the war. Maybe his stronger contrast with Bush would have been enough to put him over the top. My own sense, though, is that he would have been easily branded (unfairly) as a far-lefty, and he'd likely have lost by 5-6 points nationally. Bush would have gotten well over 300 electoral votes.

John Edwards -- He and Wes Clark are the two candidates who one can most credibly argue would have done better than Kerry. Edwards was more charismatic, easier to relate to, and more likeable. He would have likely focused on economic issues and on the war attacked the execution, not the decision. That, however, would have angered liberals which might have depressed some Democratic turnout. Edwards had a tendency also to underperform at crucial moments (his terrible VP acceptance speech, his debate with Cheney) and he would have been trying to change the subject in a national-security election. And on national security, he would have been hard-pressed to make a strong case.

Maybe had he picked Wes Clark or retired Gen. Merrill McPeak as his running mate he could have won. However, the likely ticket would have been Edwards-Kerry, and I don't know that it would have done any better than Kerry-Edwards -- in fact, it may have done worse. (Although maybe Edwards would have done less poorly in the South, possibly saving the Democrats one or two Senate seats like NC and FL, even if he didn't win those states.)

Wes Clark -- With Clark, the issue would have been political inexperience. His primary campaign was chaotic and he would have likely made several rookie mistakes. Also, he had several enemies in the form of other retired generals like Gen. Hugh Shelton, who would have almost certainly have formed the basis of a (more credible) Swift-Boaters-type attack. He would likely have lost similar to Kerry. Did Kerry at least have the potential to do better than he did? I think so.

(Oh, and the less said about Bob Graham, the better.)

On balance, I think Kerry may have been the best all-around candidate that year. No, he wasn't strongest in any one area, but he was acceptable to both liberals and conservatives, generally was acceptable to Iraq War opponents because though he supported the war, he was more critical of the aftermath than many of the others, he had national security experience and he had experience in public service. And though he wasn't very charismatic, he was moreso than arguably Joe Lieberman or Dick Gephardt were.

[Jacobtm]

Kerry could've won if his campaign wasn't run by a bunch of idiots who let baseless attacks go unanswered forever, until it seemed like they must be true because there's been no rebuttal.

I'm sure with a good campaign, Dean or Edwards or Clark could've won too.

[Eraserhead]

Probably, but I can still dream of Howard Dean's victory within the realm controlled by my mind's eye.

[Robespierre's Jaw]

Kerry's campaign in 2004 seemed the most electable on paper. Nothing more, nothing less.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I supported Clark and he could've won, as could've Edwards. Though Kerry is unfairly attacked too much, he didn't do that horrible when all is said and done, not even Dukakis-level much less Mondale or McGovern, and could've won if he responded better.

[Eraserhead]

I supported Clark and he could've won, as could've Edwards. Though Kerry is unfairly attacked too much, he didn't do that horrible when all is said and done, not even Dukakis-level much less Mondale or McGovern, and could've won if he responded better.

Clark was my second choice after Dean but let's face it, the man had no political skill whatsoever.

[Nym90]

Hard to say. Edwards probably would've had a better chance, but would have also been more risky in several respects too. Dean would've won in 2008, but not in 2004.

All in all Kerry wasn't that horrible of a candidate. He didn't run a great campaign by any means, but he at least managed to avoid giving the 48 percent of Americans who disliked Bush a reason not to vote for him.

[Wiz in Wis]

Edwards would have been the best candidate... I think it was said somewhere that he was the one Rove was most concerned with. Not that he would have carried NC, but he would have won Iowa and Ohio, and would have played better in Florida. Kerry had an incompetent staff (who thinks that hiring Bob Shrum for anything is a good idea) and was pretty accurately described as out of touch with Joe the voter. Hillary, and maybe even Biden, would have been good fits for 2004, but they of course didn't run

I was a Deaniac, but I am realistic enough to think he wouldn't have won, probably woundn't have faired too badly, but he made too  many mistakes.

[jokerman]

I supported Clark and he could've won, as could've Edwards. Though Kerry is unfairly attacked too much, he didn't do that horrible when all is said and done, not even Dukakis-level much less Mondale or McGovern, and could've won if he responded better.

Clark was my second choice after Dean but let's face it, the man had no political skill whatsoever.

Not completely true.  His debate performances, for example, improved immensely over the course of the campaign.  Had he started in early, rather than fall, 2003, he would have performed much better.

[Jeff from NC]

Yeah, I think Clark would have made a more credible candidate.  The Republicans could have tried to swift-boat him, but in doing so they would conjure up Clark's performance in the Balkans - not exactly a divisive war on the scale of Vietnam.  (And also a good way to remind the country that Clinton prosecuted a war more effectively than Bush did).  Kerry could be associated with Taxachusetts and the Senate and cheese, where Clark's roots are in the military and Arkansas.  Clark could have made the difference in Nevada, New Mexico, and Iowa; maybe even Colorado and Florida.  Also, Clark is personable and handsome whereas Kerry is awkward and funny-looking.

Clark didn't have experience as a campaigner, and probably would have gotten hit for flip flopping on this or that, and probably would have committed gaffes.  However the same can be said for Kerry, so it seems like tactically it would be a wash.

As for Edwards - he has more charisma, but I don't think he would wear well.  I don't think he could have mustered a challenge to Bush on national security.

[Psychic Octopus]

Clark or Gephardt was. Clark could have taken Bush to hell and back and won with a Clinton-esque victory.

[Akno21]

I'm inclined to agree. Based on the first four years of the Bush White House and its general campaign strategy, the '04 election as a polarizing affair was nearly unavoidable. Considering those circumstances and the lack of a transformative candidate or even one with the national gravitas of Gore or Hillary, Kerry was the best choice. The Democrats didn't need to throw a Hail Mary to defeat Bush - they just needed to execute in swing states and Kerry came remarkably close to doing that, all while running a campaign that was mediocre at best. Remember, he held all the Gore states except NM and IA, including big ones like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, in a year that generally favored the GOP. It wasn't a complete disaster. Clark, Dean, and Edwards all represent greater risks of some sort - each has more cachet than Kerry, but each was more untested on the national stage and had the potential to flop miserably. Lieberman, as previously stated, could possibly have achieved the unachievable - suppressing Democratic turnout in an election against George W. Bush. Of all the candidates, Gephardt was the second-safest choice, but as the first post indicated, would have been susceptible to the damaging claims of flip-flopping.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Clark certainly could've won the election, but he was probably the only one.

[Reaganfan]

I was rather surprised that the map wasn't atleast this:

Bush: 348
Kerry: 190

Just like with Nixon in '72, Reagan in '84 and Clinton in '96...Bush should have had an easy sail to re-election.

[Lunar]

I think Gephardt could have mounted the most credible challenge.  After that Clark.  After that, Kerry.

Lieberman?  I don't know.

[anvi]

If Gephardt could have gotten the nomination, I think he would have stood the best chance on the electoral map; he would have taken Kerry's states plus Iowa and Missouri, and that would have brought the electoral count to 269 Gephardt 268 Bush, so Gephardt would have to have pulled in one more state, maybe Nevada or New Mexico, both of which Kerry barely lost.  But, I have to say that, Gephardt having been eliminated, I had wished that Dean would have been nominated.  He may have lost to Bush too, but the election would at least have been about something important, namely the war, and the nation desperately needed that debate at that point.  I'm sorry to say that Kerry was a lame candidate.  He is a very compelling person, no doubt, but he was completely incapable of making any emotional connection to the voters, and if you don't have that, you can't win. 

[RosettaStoned]

I was rather surprised that the map wasn't atleast this:

Bush: 348
Kerry: 190

Just like with Nixon in '72, Reagan in '84 and Clinton in '96...Bush should have had an easy sail to re-election.

Except those were popular presidents running for reelection those years.

[DownWithTheLeft]

No, Dean was by far.  Example: Obama 2008