2004 election: Things I don't get

[BushKerry04]

There are things about the 2004 election I just don't understand. Am I alone here? Am I right or wrong?


1. Why did Democrats dismiss Wesley Clark?
I don't understand why any Democrat who would want to defeat President Bush in 2004 would not support Wesley Clark in the Democratic primary. Wesley Clark agreed with Howard Dean on most issues but was electable because he has more personal discipline and stronger credentials on foreign policy than Dean in a year where Bush was seen as a strong commander-in-chief. I don't understand how someone who supported Dean, a D.C. outsider who said all the things progressives wanted to hear, would then go and support John Kerry, who supported many of Bush's policies and who spent decades in Washington D.C. Clark has the personal discipline Dean lacks, the charisma Kerry lacks, and he lacks the baggage both men carry. I think Clark would have defeated Bush by a 3-5 point margin had he been nominated and unlike Kerry who many in the heartland probably see as a "coastal elitist," Clark has stronger appeal to voters in places like Ohio and Iowa, not to mention he might have been able to make Arkansas competitive.

2. Why did Bill Clinton endorse Howard Dean and not Wesley Clark?
Bill Clinton appointed Wesley Clark to two important positions within our military and said Clark was the future of the Democratic Party a few years prior to the '04 primaries. Why would Clinton endorse a northeastern progressive (though Dean was more center-left as Governor) over a fellow southerner whom he placed so much trust in just a few years earlier? Clinton had to have known that Clark stood the best chance at winning.

3. Why did Bush only win by 3 points?
Wesley Clark aside, I also don't understand why President Bush only won by 3 points. John Kerry is a controversial figure and in 2004, the Iraq War wasn't as unpopular as it became by 2006. Kerry choose a weak running-mate who couldn't even carry his home state for the ticket since he moved far to the left after his election to the U.S. Senate.

4. Why didn't Joe Lieberman do better?
While Senator Joe Lieberman is too moderate for many Democrats, I am surprised he didn't do better in the primaries, particularly in states like New Hampshire where independents vote in large numbers. Lieberman had high name I.D. from 2000 and I'd think that moderates and establishment types in the party would have supported him for President.

5. What's the real reason Al Gore didn't run?
Al Gore claimed he didn't run for President because he didn't want the '04 election to be about 2000, but was that really the reason? I can understand not wanting to run because of the time, money, and energy it takes. But it seems to me that Gore would have easily won the nomination had he run in '04. Is there more to the story?

[OSR stands with Israel]

There are things about the 2004 election I just don't understand. Am I alone here? Am I right or wrong?


1. Why did Democrats dismiss Wesley Clark?
I don't understand why any Democrat who would want to defeat President Bush in 2004 would not support Wesley Clark in the Democratic primary. Wesley Clark agreed with Howard Dean on most issues but was electable because he has more personal discipline and stronger credentials on foreign policy than Dean in a year where Bush was seen as a strong commander-in-chief. I don't understand how someone who supported Dean, a D.C. outsider who said all the things progressives wanted to hear, would then go and support John Kerry, who supported many of Bush's policies and who spent decades in Washington D.C. Clark has the personal discipline Dean lacks, the charisma Kerry lacks, and he lacks the baggage both men carry. I think Clark would have defeated Bush by a 3-5 point margin had he been nominated and unlike Kerry who many in the heartland probably see as a "coastal elitist," Clark has stronger appeal to voters in places like Ohio and Iowa, not to mention he might have been able to make Arkansas competitive.

2. Why did Bill Clinton endorse Howard Dean and not Wesley Clark?
Bill Clinton appointed Wesley Clark to two important positions within our military and said Clark was the future of the Democratic Party a few years prior to the '04 primaries. Why would Clinton endorse a northeastern progressive (though Dean was more center-left as Governor) over a fellow southerner whom he placed so much trust in just a few years earlier? Clinton had to have known that Clark stood the best chance at winning.

3. Why did Bush only win by 3 points?
Wesley Clark aside, I also don't understand why President Bush only won by 3 points. John Kerry is a controversial figure and in 2004, the Iraq War wasn't as unpopular as it became by 2006. Kerry choose a weak running-mate who couldn't even carry his home state for the ticket since he moved far to the left after his election to the U.S. Senate.

4. Why didn't Joe Lieberman do better?
While Senator Joe Lieberman is too moderate for many Democrats, I am surprised he didn't do better in the primaries, particularly in states like New Hampshire where independents vote in large numbers. Lieberman had high name I.D. from 2000 and I'd think that moderates and establishment types in the party would have supported him for President.

5. What's the real reason Al Gore didn't run?
Al Gore claimed he didn't run for President because he didn't want the '04 election to be about 2000, but was that really the reason? I can understand not wanting to run because of the time, money, and energy it takes. But it seems to me that Gore would have easily won the nomination had he run in '04. Is there more to the story?

- Clinton didnt endorse anyone , it was Gore who endorsed Dean


- Bush was extremely hated by Dems , and got even less percentage of their vote than Trump did.

[Hydera]

3. There was a lot of disapproval over the Iraq War and criticism over the war made Kerry get a lot of momentum. Also don't forget the Bin Laden tape. Without it theres a chance that Kerry either barely wins the popular vote or barely loses the popular vote but swing enough states to become President. Also the economy by 2004 was shaky. by the end of 2004 the economy finally recovered from the 2001 recession. Had the economy recovered earlier then bush's margin would be probably up to 5%. And then you consider the debates. George Bush did bad in the first debate and less bad in the second and third which gave Kerry the momentum to cut into the huge lead after the republican convention when Bush's net was 5-6%.

[SingingAnalyst]

I honestly don't understand (1). The only thing I can think of working against Wesley Clark is that he proudly stated, referring to President George W. Bush, "we have been pursuing Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden and haven't gotten either one of them yet". When Hussein was captured in Dec. 2003, that took a lot of the sting out of Clark's comment. Also, Clark had supported Reagan in the 80s, which perhaps the Dems held against him, although in retrospect they probably shouldn't have. (Reagan would die in June 2004; at the GOP convention later that year, President Bush would point out that Dem nominee John Kerry had referred to the Reagan years as "8 years of moral darkness", to a loud chorus of boos).

[BushKerry04]

There are things about the 2004 election I just don't understand. Am I alone here? Am I right or wrong?


1. Why did Democrats dismiss Wesley Clark?
I don't understand why any Democrat who would want to defeat President Bush in 2004 would not support Wesley Clark in the Democratic primary. Wesley Clark agreed with Howard Dean on most issues but was electable because he has more personal discipline and stronger credentials on foreign policy than Dean in a year where Bush was seen as a strong commander-in-chief. I don't understand how someone who supported Dean, a D.C. outsider who said all the things progressives wanted to hear, would then go and support John Kerry, who supported many of Bush's policies and who spent decades in Washington D.C. Clark has the personal discipline Dean lacks, the charisma Kerry lacks, and he lacks the baggage both men carry. I think Clark would have defeated Bush by a 3-5 point margin had he been nominated and unlike Kerry who many in the heartland probably see as a "coastal elitist," Clark has stronger appeal to voters in places like Ohio and Iowa, not to mention he might have been able to make Arkansas competitive.

2. Why did Bill Clinton endorse Howard Dean and not Wesley Clark?
Bill Clinton appointed Wesley Clark to two important positions within our military and said Clark was the future of the Democratic Party a few years prior to the '04 primaries. Why would Clinton endorse a northeastern progressive (though Dean was more center-left as Governor) over a fellow southerner whom he placed so much trust in just a few years earlier? Clinton had to have known that Clark stood the best chance at winning.

3. Why did Bush only win by 3 points?
Wesley Clark aside, I also don't understand why President Bush only won by 3 points. John Kerry is a controversial figure and in 2004, the Iraq War wasn't as unpopular as it became by 2006. Kerry choose a weak running-mate who couldn't even carry his home state for the ticket since he moved far to the left after his election to the U.S. Senate.

4. Why didn't Joe Lieberman do better?
While Senator Joe Lieberman is too moderate for many Democrats, I am surprised he didn't do better in the primaries, particularly in states like New Hampshire where independents vote in large numbers. Lieberman had high name I.D. from 2000 and I'd think that moderates and establishment types in the party would have supported him for President.

5. What's the real reason Al Gore didn't run?
Al Gore claimed he didn't run for President because he didn't want the '04 election to be about 2000, but was that really the reason? I can understand not wanting to run because of the time, money, and energy it takes. But it seems to me that Gore would have easily won the nomination had he run in '04. Is there more to the story?

- Clinton didnt endorse anyone , it was Gore who endorsed Dean


- Bush was extremely hated by Dems , and got even less percentage of their vote than Trump did.

My bad. You are right. Okay, why didn't Bill Clinton endorse Clark, someone he called the future of the party and his choice to lead NATO?

3. There was a lot of disapproval over the Iraq War and criticism over the war made Kerry get a lot of momentum. Also don't forget the Bin Laden tape. Without it theres a chance that Kerry either barely wins the popular vote or barely loses the popular vote but swing enough states to become President. Also the economy by 2004 was shaky. by the end of 2004 the economy finally recovered from the 2001 recession. Had the economy recovered earlier then bush's margin would be probably up to 5%. And then you consider the debates. George Bush did bad in the first debate and less bad in the second and third which gave Kerry the momentum to cut into the huge lead after the republican convention when Bush's net was 5-6%.

But Kerry also voted for the war and wanted to send more troops. Your point about the economy makes a lot of sense to me.

I honestly don't understand (1). The only thing I can think of working against Wesley Clark is that he proudly stated, referring to President George W. Bush, "we have been pursuing Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden and haven't gotten either one of them yet". When Hussein was captured in Dec. 2003, that took a lot of the sting out of Clark's comment. Also, Clark had supported Reagan in the 80s, which perhaps the Dems held against him, although in retrospect they probably shouldn't have. (Reagan would die in June 2004; at the GOP convention later that year, President Bush would point out that Dem nominee John Kerry had referred to the Reagan years as "8 years of moral darkness", to a loud chorus of boos).

I forgot that about Clark on Iraq. Clark's support of Reagan should have made him a more appealing candidate to independents, no? Also, let's remember that Democrats didn't get pissed at Obama for praising Reagan in 2008.

[OSR stands with Israel]

There are things about the 2004 election I just don't understand. Am I alone here? Am I right or wrong?


1. Why did Democrats dismiss Wesley Clark?
I don't understand why any Democrat who would want to defeat President Bush in 2004 would not support Wesley Clark in the Democratic primary. Wesley Clark agreed with Howard Dean on most issues but was electable because he has more personal discipline and stronger credentials on foreign policy than Dean in a year where Bush was seen as a strong commander-in-chief. I don't understand how someone who supported Dean, a D.C. outsider who said all the things progressives wanted to hear, would then go and support John Kerry, who supported many of Bush's policies and who spent decades in Washington D.C. Clark has the personal discipline Dean lacks, the charisma Kerry lacks, and he lacks the baggage both men carry. I think Clark would have defeated Bush by a 3-5 point margin had he been nominated and unlike Kerry who many in the heartland probably see as a "coastal elitist," Clark has stronger appeal to voters in places like Ohio and Iowa, not to mention he might have been able to make Arkansas competitive.

2. Why did Bill Clinton endorse Howard Dean and not Wesley Clark?
Bill Clinton appointed Wesley Clark to two important positions within our military and said Clark was the future of the Democratic Party a few years prior to the '04 primaries. Why would Clinton endorse a northeastern progressive (though Dean was more center-left as Governor) over a fellow southerner whom he placed so much trust in just a few years earlier? Clinton had to have known that Clark stood the best chance at winning.

3. Why did Bush only win by 3 points?
Wesley Clark aside, I also don't understand why President Bush only won by 3 points. John Kerry is a controversial figure and in 2004, the Iraq War wasn't as unpopular as it became by 2006. Kerry choose a weak running-mate who couldn't even carry his home state for the ticket since he moved far to the left after his election to the U.S. Senate.

4. Why didn't Joe Lieberman do better?
While Senator Joe Lieberman is too moderate for many Democrats, I am surprised he didn't do better in the primaries, particularly in states like New Hampshire where independents vote in large numbers. Lieberman had high name I.D. from 2000 and I'd think that moderates and establishment types in the party would have supported him for President.

5. What's the real reason Al Gore didn't run?
Al Gore claimed he didn't run for President because he didn't want the '04 election to be about 2000, but was that really the reason? I can understand not wanting to run because of the time, money, and energy it takes. But it seems to me that Gore would have easily won the nomination had he run in '04. Is there more to the story?

- Clinton didnt endorse anyone , it was Gore who endorsed Dean


- Bush was extremely hated by Dems , and got even less percentage of their vote than Trump did.

My bad. You are right. Okay, why didn't Bill Clinton endorse Clark, someone he called the future of the party and his choice to lead NATO?

3. There was a lot of disapproval over the Iraq War and criticism over the war made Kerry get a lot of momentum. Also don't forget the Bin Laden tape. Without it theres a chance that Kerry either barely wins the popular vote or barely loses the popular vote but swing enough states to become President. Also the economy by 2004 was shaky. by the end of 2004 the economy finally recovered from the 2001 recession. Had the economy recovered earlier then bush's margin would be probably up to 5%. And then you consider the debates. George Bush did bad in the first debate and less bad in the second and third which gave Kerry the momentum to cut into the huge lead after the republican convention when Bush's net was 5-6%.

But Kerry also voted for the war and wanted to send more troops. Your point about the economy makes a lot of sense to me.

I honestly don't understand (1). The only thing I can think of working against Wesley Clark is that he proudly stated, referring to President George W. Bush, "we have been pursuing Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden and haven't gotten either one of them yet". When Hussein was captured in Dec. 2003, that took a lot of the sting out of Clark's comment. Also, Clark had supported Reagan in the 80s, which perhaps the Dems held against him, although in retrospect they probably shouldn't have. (Reagan would die in June 2004; at the GOP convention later that year, President Bush would point out that Dem nominee John Kerry had referred to the Reagan years as "8 years of moral darkness", to a loud chorus of boos).

I forgot that about Clark on Iraq. Clark's support of Reagan should have made him a more appealing candidate to independents, no? Also, let's remember that Democrats didn't get pissed at Obama for praising Reagan in 2008.

Presidents and former Presidents  don’t usually endorse candidates in primaries


Only exception is the Bushes endorsing Jeb and Bill endorsing Hillary(but that was because they were directly related to the former president)

[UWS]

For the 4th question, I guess the reason why Lieberman did not do better and failed to win the Democratic nomination was partly because of his support to the Iraq War that was unpopular among the Democrats even though John Kerry supported it in 2002 until he flip-flopped on that issue during the 2004 presidential campaign.