could anyone have beaten Bush in '04?

[MaC]

well, most of the Democrats were crummy choices.  Edwards had the looks that may have pushed him over.  And Clark possibly could've gotten it if he were more clear on the issues.
Dean was ideologically a better person than Kerry, but he would've lost by more points as the media painted him farther left than Kerry.

But for sake of the argument: no

[Smash255]

I think Clark would have had a decent chance of beating Bush and Edwards would have had a decent chance as well especially if he has someone with a strong military backround as his VP.  Edwards/ Clark in retrospect I think would have had a real good chance of beating Bush.  Hard to say if they would have won, but I think it would have been a little closer.

[Nym90]

Edwards definitely would have. Clark probably as well, or pretty much any moderate Governor or Senator likely would've (or even the liberal ones, if they had run a better campaign than Kerry did).

This question seems a bit odd in a way. In order to answer that no one could've beaten Bush, you'd basically be saying Kerry was the strongest possible candidate the Democrats had in the entire country, given how close he came to winning. And I don't think hardly anyone would agree with that....

[Dr. Cynic]

Edwards could have... I think his positive, upbeat campaign would really have come across very well.

I think Dean reminded me of another Harry Truman... When the media ganged up on him, though, that was all she wrote.

Clark would've been a good shot as well, because if he could paint Bush as ignorant in the ways of the millitary, then that would've been the nail in Bush's coffin... Problem with Clark was that he was WAY underfunded.

The rest of the field I have serious doubts about.

[Beet]

I think a Graham/Clark ticket could have done it.

[Nym90]

Edwards could have... I think his positive, upbeat campaign would really have come across very well.

I think Dean reminded me of another Harry Truman... When the media ganged up on him, though, that was all she wrote.

Clark would've been a good shot as well, because if he could paint Bush as ignorant in the ways of the millitary, then that would've been the nail in Bush's coffin... Problem with Clark was that he was WAY underfunded.

The rest of the field I have serious doubts about.

I took the question to mean anyone as in anyone in the country at all, not just the field of candidates who actually ran.

I would add Al Gore as someone who very possibly could've beaten Bush. He certainly would've done no worse than Kerry and I think he could've pulled through in Ohio.

[WalterMitty]

joe lieberman.

[MaC]

joe lieberman.

nah, vote splitting would give more liberal votes to Nader.

[kashifsakhan]

John Kerry. he could have done it.

[ATFFL]

Edwards definitely would have. Clark probably as well, or pretty much any moderate Governor or Senator likely would've (or even the liberal ones, if they had run a better campaign than Kerry did).

Edwards was/is an empty suit. 

[Boris]

John Kerry could've done it if he had ran a better campaign.

[MaC]

Edwards definitely would have. Clark probably as well, or pretty much any moderate Governor or Senator likely would've (or even the liberal ones, if they had run a better campaign than Kerry did).

Edwards was/is an empty suit. 

with an attractive face nonetheless

[Nym90]

Edwards definitely would have. Clark probably as well, or pretty much any moderate Governor or Senator likely would've (or even the liberal ones, if they had run a better campaign than Kerry did).

Edwards was/is an empty suit. 

Perhaps, but I still think he could've beaten Bush. He would've had more appeal in Ohio, Florida, Missouri, Iowa, and New Mexico. West Virginia and Arkansas also would've been at least competitive.

[jokerman]

John Kerry could've done it if he had ran a better decent campaign.

[Michael Z]

John Kerry could've done it if he had ran a better decent campaign.

Damn right. I mean, what was the most memorable image of Kerry's campaign? Him sitting there, feet on the table, with a beer, watching the Super Bowl and desperately trying to look cool and come across like a real human being. He looked so stiff and unconvincing in this "Look at me, I'm just like Joe Average"-act that it was simply embarassing, and it was actually at that point where I started thinking "You know, I have a feeling Kerry could blow this thing".

Seriously, forget Dukakis in the tank or even Al and Tipper's "passionate" kiss at the 2000 DNC (which actually made laugh out loud), this was the most cringeworthy thing I've seen in any election campaign.

[jokerman]

I agree completely; if there was anything that killed him it was that he came off as unsincere and fake.

[dazzleman]

John Kerry could've done it if he had ran a better decent campaign.

Damn right. I mean, what was the most memorable image of Kerry's campaign? Him sitting there, feet on the table, with a beer, watching the Super Bowl and desperately trying to look cool and come across like a real human being. He looked so stiff and unconvincing in this "Look at me, I'm just like Joe Average"-act that it was simply embarassing, and it was actually at that point where I started thinking "You know, I have a feeling Kerry could blow this thing".

Seriously, forget Dukakis in the tank or even Al and Tipper's "passionate" kiss at the 2000 DNC (which actually made laugh out loud), this was the most cringeworthy thing I've seen in any election campaign.

I think that when you try to be something you're not in politics, people pick up on that, and become suspicious.  Kerry obviously is not joe six-pack, so why to act like he is?

This is the same thing that, to a lesser extent, really hurt George H.W. Bush.  He tried to be a tough guy from Texas, but he looked, acted and sounded like a Connecticut preppie.  It's generally better if you embrace who you are rather than run away from it.

This caused a deeper problem for Kerry, related to the issues.  He simply couldn't hold onto a position, and nobody could trust where he actually stood.  I tend to think that it was too late to rectify that by the time of the generally election campaign.  He had already turned anti-war, after having advocated military action against Saddam Hussein for the prior 7 years, long predating the Bush administration.  He blamed faulty intelligence from the Bush administration, after having accepted that same intelligence from the Clinton administration.  And then there was the matter of voting for the Iraq aid package before voting against it.

From what he says now, you'd think that he was right all along about Iraq.  Truth is, he was closer to being right earlier, and is wrong now, because being wrong is politically expedient in the crowd he hangs with.  I have ZERO respect for John Kerry.

I think a stronger Democratic candidate could have beaten Bush.  But in order to do that, he/she would have had to take positions that would have made it impossible to get the nomination.  The problem is really with the party, particularly its base, not with any particular candidate.

[memphis]

Al Sharpton could have won all 50 states and Canada too

[TomC]

Yes, Kerry did a fine job (with lots of help) of getting Bush's negatives up. He didn't give undecideds a reason to vote FOR him.

[Inmate Trump]

Sure, lots of people could've beaten Bush.  He's not Ronald Reagan or FDR or something.  I was this close to casting my vote for Kerry based solely on my poor opinion of Bush and nothing else.  Kerry was the wrong candidate, and the Democrats should have known that before they nominated him, especially with a large field to choose from.

[Lincoln Republican]

An incumbent President in a time of war is extremely difficult to beat.

I believe Bush would have prevailed, in large part due to the national security issue, against any Democratic nominee. 

[kashifsakhan]

An incumbent President in a time of war is extremely difficult to beat.

I believe Bush would have prevailed, in large part due to the national security issue, against any Democratic nominee. 

Actually its getting harder and harder to beat an incumbent in any situation. Just look at how many incumbent's have lost the general election since the end of the second world war:

George H.W.Bush
Jimmy Carter
Gerald Ford

Thats pretty much it, although Lyndon Johnson would have been on that list had he decided to go for re-election.

[ATFFL]

And Ford should only count as a half.

[Beet]

I think that when you try to be something you're not in politics, people pick up on that, and become suspicious.  Kerry obviously is not joe six-pack, so why to act like he is?

This is the same thing that, to a lesser extent, really hurt George H.W. Bush.  He tried to be a tough guy from Texas, but he looked, acted and sounded like a Connecticut preppie.  It's generally better if you embrace who you are rather than run away from it.

I disagree, the two political figures today who have done more than anything to cultivate an inaccurate image of themselves are George W. Bush and George Allen. Allen walks around with cowboy boots continually, has a well known obsession with the confederacy, and tries to pretend like he knows something about southwestern Virginia by dabbling in racist populism. The truth is he was raised in an upper middle class household in SoCal. It would be like John Ford trying to pretend to be StatesRights- it just isn't so.

But the biggest one by far is George W. Bush. He comes from one of the most privileged New England families in America, and his whole career basically stems from the fact that his father was once the Vice President and President of the U.S. He was in the same Skull & Bones society at Yale as Kerry, which his grades alone would never have gotten him near. He has never been poor or middle class in his entire life. His policies, more than any other President in over 70 years, have tended to explicitly favor the upper echelons of society. He even stated himself how his base consists of the "haves and have mores." Yet he carefully cultivated the image of a "common man" rancher from Texas, the average Joe, the southern hick, who sticks it to the intellectuals and wonks like Al Gore. More than any other very high profile politician in several decades George Bush has tried to be something he is not. And the thing is it worked. Many people did not see through it, at least not enough people, and not in time to make a difference. As fake as it was people bought into it.

George H.W. Bush did not try that hard to be something other than New England Brahmin, in my opinion. I have never seen a photo of H.W. in a cowboy hat, or wearing cowboy boots. He never tried to pass himself off as a rancher. In fact, during one of his Presidential campaigns, one of the large mansions he owned in Maine actually was the subject of media attention. If he had really tried that hard to cultivate a faux image, he would have known what a grocery store checkout scanner was, even if he never used them. In fact, I think that his mink coat image is one of the things that hurt him the most, and our current President, his son, specifically learned from his father's mistakes, and that is why W. has tried so hard to run away from it.

As for Kerry, if he tried to cultivate any sort of deceiving image, it was probably that he tried to imitate Jack Kennedy too much.

[kashifsakhan]

I think that when you try to be something you're not in politics, people pick up on that, and become suspicious.  Kerry obviously is not joe six-pack, so why to act like he is?

This is the same thing that, to a lesser extent, really hurt George H.W. Bush.  He tried to be a tough guy from Texas, but he looked, acted and sounded like a Connecticut preppie.  It's generally better if you embrace who you are rather than run away from it.

I disagree, the two political figures today who have done more than anything to cultivate an inaccurate image of themselves are George W. Bush and George Allen. Allen walks around with cowboy boots continually, has a well known obsession with the confederacy, and tries to pretend like he knows something about southwestern Virginia by dabbling in racist populism. The truth is he was raised in an upper middle class household in SoCal. It would be like John Ford trying to pretend to be StatesRights- it just isn't so.

But the biggest one by far is George W. Bush. He comes from one of the most privileged New England families in America, and his whole career basically stems from the fact that his father was once the Vice President and President of the U.S. He was in the same Skull & Bones society at Yale as Kerry, which his grades alone would never have gotten him near. He has never been poor or middle class in his entire life. His policies, more than any other President in over 70 years, have tended to explicitly favor the upper echelons of society. He even stated himself how his base consists of the "haves and have mores." Yet he carefully cultivated the image of a "common man" rancher from Texas, the average Joe, the southern hick, who sticks it to the intellectuals and wonks like Al Gore. More than any other very high profile politician in several decades George Bush has tried to be something he is not. And the thing is it worked. Many people did not see through it, at least not enough people, and not in time to make a difference. As fake as it was people bought into it.

George H.W. Bush did not try that hard to be something other than New England Brahmin, in my opinion. I have never seen a photo of H.W. in a cowboy hat, or wearing cowboy boots. He never tried to pass himself off as a rancher. In fact, during one of his Presidential campaigns, one of the large mansions he owned in Maine actually was the subject of media attention. If he had really tried that hard to cultivate a faux image, he would have known what a grocery store checkout scanner was, even if he never used them. In fact, I think that his mink coat image is one of the things that hurt him the most, and our current President, his son, specifically learned from his father's mistakes, and that is why W. has tried so hard to run away from it.

As for Kerry, if he tried to cultivate any sort of deceiving image, it was probably that he tried to imitate Jack Kennedy too much.

Even though i absolutely hate George W, one of the things i always give him credit for is cultivating an image of the everyday American. Thats probably the reason why he won in 2004- Bush successfully portrayed himself as an average-Joe, while Kerry couldnt. Kerry seemed to be too smart to be an average joe. I think Bush's poor public speaking record might have been a blessing in disguise even.