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

[Derek]

http://

Here's a Bush vs. Leiberman map if you're talking about different candidates.

[Derek]

http://

and Bush vs Dean

[Derek]

http://

Don't forget Bush vs. Edwards

[Derek]

http://

and of course Bush vs. Gephardt

[Derek]

http://

oh and I almost forgot Dennis Kucinich

[Derek]

http://

and Bush vs Dean

lol at Dean losing California.

California is only about the 10th most liberal state in presidential elections. In fact you probably don't know but California was closer thn Illinois and Hawaii. There was a point where Kerry led Bush 49-46 there while Bush had a 49% approval rating. It wasn't out of the question between the GOP convention and the debates.

[Derek]

How can anyone think that Howard Dean is electable. The guy is a raging moron and openly admitted that the healthcare bill didn't include a cap on frivolous lawsuits because they didn't want to upset the trial lawyers. When asked what he meant, he denied ever saying it despite the footage.

[Derek]

How can anyone think that Howard Dean is electable. The guy is a raging moron and openly admitted that the healthcare bill didn't include a cap on frivolous lawsuits because they didn't want to upset the trial lawyers. When asked what he meant, he denied ever saying it despite the footage.

Ppppppplease. Dean is a modeate, just like Kerry. He is even in favor of gun rights and got an A from the NRA as Governor of Vermont.

Oooooooooooh gun rights, that's right the 2004 election was all about your right to own a gun. Dean is a socialist and even said that we need to find the right balance between capitalism and socialism. Socialism has no place in this country. He wanted to surrender authority of commander in chief to the UN when it came to sending our troops into harms way. Then there was the Dean Scream. Oh, and for the record, John Kerry had the most liberal voting record in the senate that year.

[Derek]

http://

This could also be the map for Bush Jr. vs. Obama 2004.

I'd still give Obama IL that year but yea. Kucinich could have lost every state.

[Derek]

http://

This could also be the map for Bush Jr. vs. Obama 2004.

I'd still give Obama IL that year but yea. Kucinich could have lost every state.

IL went for Bush by about 10%, if I remember correctly. Obama (a little-known state senator) would scare enough people about his experience that the state will flip to Bush. At least no one could question Kerry's experience.

That's true but it didn't work for Alan Keyes. IL went 55-45 I believe as did CA and CT.

[Derek]

http://

This could also be the map for Bush Jr. vs. Obama 2004.

I'd still give Obama IL that year but yea. Kucinich could have lost every state.

IL went for Bush by about 10%, if I remember correctly. Obama (a little-known state senator) would scare enough people about his experience that the state will flip to Bush. At least no one could question Kerry's experience.

That's true but it didn't work for Alan Keyes. IL went 55-45 I believe as did CA and CT.

Alan Keyes was a joke candidadte. Bush Jr. was not.

Either way the fact IL was Obama's state plus IL being a good state for a democrat to be from. I'm not ruling IL out for Bush if Obama was the nominee. It would be close.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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!

[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.

[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.