2004 Obama vs Bush

[tonyreyes89]

Feel free to discuss with maps.

[tonyreyes89]

Bush: 316
Obama: 222

[Rowan]

Bush would have wiped him clean. The "inexperience" charge against Obama would have been even greater and more effective. Plus, with the economy humming along Obama would have had no shot. Obama only wins in doom and gloom situations.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

In 2004 Obama was only a state senator; even a US representative would have a better chance. Landslide win for Bush obviously; he wins everything but DC, and wins the popular vote with over 60%.

[Historia Crux]

Probably something like this.

Bush: 535 EV
Obama: 3 EV

[Tender Branson]

Bush: 316
Obama: 222

That map, minus MN, NE-02 and PA and darker shades in several states.

Bush 59% - Obama 40%

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Andy Jackson is right.

Something like this:

Popular vote: Bush 62%, Obama 36%

Close states (margin is under 10%), in no particular order: HI, IL, NY, MA and RI.

[Marokai Backbeat]

(Ignore the PV percentages.)

[Landslide Lyndon]

All that is nice and interesting.

But will someone please explain me why the hell would the Democrats nominate an obscure state senator?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

[Nixon in '80]

All that is nice and interesting.

But will someone please explain me why the hell would the Democrats nominate an obscure state senator?

Because it's CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN!

Seriously though, I don't get it either. Does this TL have a different Obama history... did he win Braun's seat in 1998? Does he succeed in his challenge of Bobby Rush in 2000? Does he beat Blago for the Democratic nomination for Governor in 2002? These scenarios would make this a little bit more believable.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

There was enough "anybody but Bush" vote out there for Obama to carry a few states and avoid the biggest defeat in history..... but not by much.  Many people who didn't particularly like Bush would still vote for a sitting President over a State Senator. 

Bush - 59% 429 EV
Obama - 40% 109 EV

Obama only wins states that have a high black population mixed with a lot of white liberals and some New England states in which Bush has very low approval ratings. 

9/11 effect puts Bush over the top in NY, NJ, and CT, where whites vote nearly 2/3's for Bush. 

He wins Illinois because we know it's going to be a blowout so people show up for their home state guy.   

[tonyreyes89]

All that is nice and interesting.

But will someone please explain me why the hell would the Democrats nominate an obscure state senator?

Because it's CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN!

Seriously though, I don't get it either. Does this TL have a different Obama history... did he win Braun's seat in 1998? Does he succeed in his challenge of Bobby Rush in 2000? Does he beat Blago for the Democratic nomination for Governor in 2002? These scenarios would make this a little bit more believable.

Obama's keynote speech captivates the delegates and they nominate him.

:-)

[Landslide Lyndon]

All that is nice and interesting.

But will someone please explain me why the hell would the Democrats nominate an obscure state senator?

Because it's CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN!

Seriously though, I don't get it either. Does this TL have a different Obama history... did he win Braun's seat in 1998? Does he succeed in his challenge of Bobby Rush in 2000? Does he beat Blago for the Democratic nomination for Governor in 2002? These scenarios would make this a little bit more believable.

Obama's keynote speech captivates the delegates and they nominate him.

:-)

This is 2004, not 1952.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Anybody who was not John Kerry could win, especially a formidable campaigner like Obama :

Obama : 284
Bush : 254

[tmthforu94]

Bush would win in a landslide. Obama would be even more inexperienced than he was in 2008.

Popular Vote:
Bush-64.65%
Obama-35.03%

Electoral Vote:
Obama-7
Bush-531

[tonyreyes89]

The anti-Bush sentiment and the energizing campaign of Obama create a democratic victory in 2004. Ohio and NC go for Obama due to large African American turn out, and the pick of Edwards also puts him over the top in the tar heel state.

[tmthforu94]

The anti-Bush sentiment and the energizing campaign of Obama create a democratic victory in 2004. Ohio and NC go for Obama due to large African American turn out, and the pick of Edwards also puts him over the top in the tar heel state.

You're kidding??
Obama would only be a state senator at the time...
Also, Iowa would go Democrat WAY before North Carolina or Nevada would

[Lincoln Republican]

It is Democratic hackery run wild that would show Obama defeating Bush in 2004.

The economy was doing well, bush still enjoyed a considerable level of support in the country.  The voters do not entrust national security and the fate of the free world to some Illinois State Senator, unknown much outside of his state senate district.

Obama, maybe, wins Massachusetts and Rhode Island, two very liberal states, and, possibly, Vermont, which seems to like to march to its' own drummer.

Edwards on the ticket under no circumstances brings in North Carolina to Obama.  He couldn't bring it in for Kerry, a much more credible nominee in 2004 than Obama would have been, and he most certainly would not have brought it in for Obama.

Obama fails to win his home state of Illinois.

Bush and Cheney romp to a crushing victory.

Bush                          516
Obama                         22

[Antonio the Sixth]

It is Democratic hackery run wild that would show Obama defeating Bush in 2004.

The economy was doing well, bush still enjoyed a considerable level of support in the country.  The voters do not entrust national security and the fate of the free world to some Illinois State Senator, unknown much outside of his state senate district.

Obama, maybe, wins Massachusetts and Rhode Island, two very liberal states, and, possibly, Vermont, which seems to like to march to its' own drummer.

Edwards on the ticket under no circumstances brings in North Carolina to Obama.  He couldn't bring it in for Kerry, a much more credible nominee in 2004 than Obama would have been, and he most certainly would not have brought it in for Obama.

Obama fails to win his home state of Illinois.

Bush and Cheney romp to a crushing victory.

Bush                          516
Obama                         22

Obama wins Mssachusetts but loses Hawaii ?

[You kip if you want to...]

It is Democratic hackery run wild that would show Obama defeating Bush in 2004.

The economy was doing well, bush still enjoyed a considerable level of support in the country.  The voters do not entrust national security and the fate of the free world to some Illinois State Senator, unknown much outside of his state senate district.

Obama, maybe, wins Massachusetts and Rhode Island, two very liberal states, and, possibly, Vermont, which seems to like to march to its' own drummer.

Edwards on the ticket under no circumstances brings in North Carolina to Obama.  He couldn't bring it in for Kerry, a much more credible nominee in 2004 than Obama would have been, and he most certainly would not have brought it in for Obama.

Obama fails to win his home state of Illinois.

Bush and Cheney romp to a crushing victory.

Bush                          516
Obama                         22

Obama wins Mssachusetts but loses Hawaii ?

Yeah, Hawaii was a swing state in '04. And also no state senator could win an election against an incumbent president, not even against a Buchanan or a Hoover.

[big bad fab]

All that is nice and interesting.

But will someone please explain me why the hell would the Democrats nominate an obscure state senator?

Because it's CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN!

Seriously though, I don't get it either. Does this TL have a different Obama history... did he win Braun's seat in 1998? Does he succeed in his challenge of Bobby Rush in 2000? Does he beat Blago for the Democratic nomination for Governor in 2002? These scenarios would make this a little bit more believable.

Are you able to have fun a bit, from times to times ?

It's a "what if", remember ?

[big bad fab]

Bush 370 - Obama 168

The main difference is that Bush would have been able to campaign with a more moderate stance (keeping the security and values themes without absolutely any effort), as Obama would have stood far more on the left that year.

Sure, anti-war feeling would have let Obama win the West coast, even Oregon and Washington.
But he would have been crushed in the MidWest (maybe even in Minnesota, even if I let it in red in my map) and he would have lost moderate New England.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It is Democratic hackery run wild that would show Obama defeating Bush in 2004.

The economy was doing well, bush still enjoyed a considerable level of support in the country.  The voters do not entrust national security and the fate of the free world to some Illinois State Senator, unknown much outside of his state senate district.

Obama, maybe, wins Massachusetts and Rhode Island, two very liberal states, and, possibly, Vermont, which seems to like to march to its' own drummer.

Edwards on the ticket under no circumstances brings in North Carolina to Obama.  He couldn't bring it in for Kerry, a much more credible nominee in 2004 than Obama would have been, and he most certainly would not have brought it in for Obama.

Obama fails to win his home state of Illinois.

Bush and Cheney romp to a crushing victory.

Bush                          516
Obama                         22

Obama wins Mssachusetts but loses Hawaii ?

Yeah, Hawaii was a swing state in '04. And also no state senator could win an election against an incumbent president, not even against a Buchanan or a Hoover.

Do you just know tat Obama is born here and that he got 72% in 2008 ? If he won a state,, it would be Hawaii.

Even assuming that Obama was elected to the Senate in 2000, he would be crushed.  Obama's "hope" and "change" nonsense would go nowhere in a country where Bush fatigue has still not set in, and he would be absolutely clueless as to where he stood on the Iraq War.  The Bush/Rove campaign would also be unafraid to go after Obama's extreme record or "interesting" background, and he would lose in a landslide.  Big Bad Fab probably has the most accurate map, though I would add Oregon and Minnesota to Bush's column.

I love your euphemisms to qualify people's fellings about Bush and your void insinuations about Obama. Is there really 46% of people like you in America ?

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Even assuming that Obama was elected to the Senate in 2000, he would be crushed.  Obama's "hope" and "change" nonsense would go nowhere in a country where Bush fatigue has still not set in, and he would be absolutely clueless as to where he stood on the Iraq War.  The Bush/Rove campaign would also be unafraid to go after Obama's extreme record or "interesting" background, and he would lose in a landslide.  Big Bad Fab probably has the most accurate map, though I would add Oregon and Minnesota to Bush's column.

IL did not have a senate election in 2000.