2004: Bush Jr. vs. Kerry w/ no Iraq War

[Derek]

http://

I think that Iraq cost Bush about 3 points in 2004. Yes, national security and terrorism were big helps for his support, but it was about 55-45 saying things were going at least somewhat poorly.

[Derek]

55 months of consecutive economic growth is a sign that the economy is well. Plus a majority of ppl rated the economy as good/excellent. The idea that the economy was bad was due to the media and the loss of jobs in the rust belt. Those who said the economy was the TOP issue voted for Kerry, but the majority trusted Bush over Kerry on this issue. Plus Kerry voted for the 87 billion dollars before he voted against it.

[Derek]

Yes that also says that more people trusted Bush to handle the economy than Kerry. It also says that only 44% of people thought that things in Iraq were going well while 52% thought they were going badly. LOL if anyone else wants to see:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

[Derek]

Oh I don't think she would've run until 2008 only because Bush didn't look beatable until early 2004. He was very popular due to the terrorist attacks on 9/11 and the War on Terror. Iraq hurt his popularity so without Iraq I think Clinton would've been less likely to run. I actually thought that with the Iraq War, Clinton would take over for Kerry around August. Never underestimate her and her intentions.

[Derek]

What's funny about what I said? As for Bush's numbers:

Iraq helped him for a couple months and then started to hurt him. The economy was rolling full speed ahead in places that aren't called Ohio and Michigan as early as fall 2003. Unfortunately, people don't understand it's more the private sector and interest rates set by the federal reserve which guide the economy. Unfortunately, people enjoy finding someone to blame other than themselves due to a lack of personal responsibility.

[Derek]

What's funny about what I said? As for Bush's numbers:

Iraq helped him for a couple months and then started to hurt him. The economy was rolling full speed ahead in places that aren't called Ohio and Michigan as early as fall 2003. Unfortunately, people don't understand it's more the private sector and interest rates set by the federal reserve which guide the economy. Unfortunately, people enjoy finding someone to blame other than themselves due to a lack of personal responsibility.

First of all, the Fed Chairman (Alan Greenspan) was also a GOP member, and thus many people associated what he did with what Bush did. Secondly, even though the economy was beginning to recover (in terms of jobs) in late 2003, that is when fuel prices began rising as well, and thus many people didn't feel very confident about the economic recovery.

I'll give you the fact people weren't comfortable with the recovery and gas prices were an issue. Think though. What does Bush actually have to do with that? He can't wave a wand and make gas prices go down. Kerry never gave people confidence and that's why he even lost on the economy overall.

[Derek]

But if there was no Iraq war than the President and the Congress would have done more to help the economy, and the deficit would've been lower.

There would have still been a deficit, which would have looked bad in comparison to 2000 and 2001, when the U.S. had a surplus. Also, Bush already did a lot to help improve the economy. What else could/would he and Congress have done in regards to the economy (if there would have been no Iraq War)?

You know I have to agree or at least say that what congress should've done with the first Bush "tax cut" was use that money to pay off some of our deficit while lowering taxes across the board. He didn't have the Republicans in the senate to get that accomplished though. I'd do away with taxes altogether and replace taxes with user fees.

[Derek]

Kerry wins due to a lackluster economy.

Exactly. That was my reasoning as well. Without Iraq, terrorism would be much less of an issue in 2004 and many of the voters who voted for Bush due to concerns about terrorism would have voted for Kerry due to concerns about the economy. Also, without Iraq, Bush would have been unable to attack Kerry as a flip-flopper or "swiftboat" Kerry, and thus Kerry would have gotten some voters that didn't go to him in RL.

Jfern, could you also please make a map?

Terrorism would still be a big concern due to war in Afghanistan and unfriendly regimes in Iran, Iraq and NKorea. Kerry could still be painted as a flip-flopper on a host of issues and statements, and there would have still been some animus from the swift-boaters.

321 - 217

The situation in Afghanistan was very stable in 2004, since almost all of the fighting there had stopped, the U.S. had removed the Taliban, and since there were no large scale insurgencies there yet. Thus, I don't think people would have paid much attention to Afghanistan or those other unfriendly regimes (since they would have felt that these govt.'s aren't an immediate threat to the U.S.). Terorrism would have still been an issue, but much less of an issue since there wouldn't be weekly bombings directed against American troops (as there was in Iraq). True, Kerry could have been attacked as a flip-flopper, but the attacks would have been less severe than they were with an Iraq War, and also I don't think people would have paid that much attention to swiftboating in 2004 if they would have been less scared (by Bush). Thus, the flipflopping that Bush orchestrated against Kerry might have very well backfired against him without an Iraq War.

Afganistan still would've helped Bush because it was somewhat stable. I mean it's not like he invaded Afganistan before he didn't invade that country as opposed to Kerry and the $87 billion.