Would Clark have won? Could anyone have beat Bush?
McCain.
I don’t think even Jesus Christ would have won against Bush for the following reasons:
1- Too liberal.
2- Soft on crime (turn the other cheek).
3- Supported welfare.
4- Believed in paying higher taxes (pay onto Ceasar what’s Ceasar’s).
5- Flip-floped a lot (also believed in “an eye for an eye,” among other flip flops).
I think Dean could have beat Bush, because he had a clear uncompromised position against the Iraq war.
Of the crop of contenders in the Democratic primaries, Joe Lieberman and Bob Graham would both have done better than Kerry, IMO.
But the thing is, it was a VERY weak field for the Democrats. They needed someone like Evan Bayh.
I agree with Brian. Dean had the best chance of winning. He also had the best chance of losing by 30 points. Iraq was realistically the only one democrats could win on.
As things turned out, Kerry had a bunch of openings that dropped out of the sky, but he either did not wish or was unable to take advantage of them. Yesterday might have been different if he had taken advantage of these gifts.
Kerry could’ve beat Bush if he’d gone on the offensive and not let his opponent define the contest.
Dean would have been a good bet. Since the majority of Kerry’s supporters were expected to come from the 18-26 age range and only 17% of them actually showed up, Dean would have been able to energize that base a lot better.
Or, you know, Clinton. I think he could have pulled it out.
The Dem Party leadership screwed up big time, imo. They wanted to have a short primary season & settle on a candidate quickly. They feared that if the process took too long, the contenders would cut each other up too badly, and whoever won would be un-electable. The Repubs would repeat the charges his Dem opponents used against him.
One result of this strateby was that whoever got the nomination would not have had to go thru a fight to get it. Well, maybe a fight was needed. During a fight, people’s weaknesses and vernerablities would have been exposed. If anyone had anything in his record that would harm his chances of victory, it would have come out. The strongest candidate would have been the survivor. That hypothetical survivoer would have had a better chance to win the election than Kerry did.
Also wore a beard and a dress.
Honestly, I think Dean might have been either a far better or far worse choice - it really does seem that a clearly defined platform will beat a fuzzy one, and that an active candidate will beat a passive one if the active candidate isn’t seen as “too negative” or entirely frightening. Dean might have been over the “frightening” line for some people.
However, other candidates did have some less subjective advantages that Kerry did not - it’s hard to run from Congress, man. You vote on a gazillion bills during your years in Congress and then anybody can make you look like you’re for anything. Governors seem to come out much better in the “record” race, even though they often come from poorer states. (Possibly because anything good that happened on your watch looks good, even if it’s problematical in hindsight - look at the Texas schools for an example.)
Southern governors have been extremely successful in recent years, even if they’re Democrats. Barring a Southern governor, perhaps somebody like Dean would have turned out to have been electable. It’s hard to say, though, because the sort of campaign you run in the general election often is not the same as the one you run in the primaries, so I think it’s really impossible to tell how middle America would have felt about Dean through the summer.
I think Al Gore may have had a shot.
He would have gotten some of the “let’s make it right” votes. His speaches have become less wooden. His opinions on the environment, if expressed correctly could have reached those undecideds. He has issues that are not just Iraq/Terror. If communicted properly, he could have at the very least pushed GWB to answer for something besides terrorism and the war.
I also think Dean would have made a better challenger for Mr. Bush. Maybe not win the election or even do as well as Mr. Kerry, but I think some of the issues he was not afraid to bring up may have raised some doubts for those that ultimatley voted for the President. He brings a more aggressive style then Kerry. May work, may not.
Both of these guy should have been used more to help promote Kerry.
Howard Dean would have lost in a landslide of historic proportions. You need to stop thinking about who you would have liked, and start thinking about who the church-going mechanic in Colorado would like. Those are the people you have to win over.
John Edwards?
I think Edwards would have had a good shot at it… even if he looks too young and too nice…
Jesus wouldn’t have run for office.
Only in the classical sense, but not in the sense that you mean. He was the consumate libertarian.
He was, in fact, a criminal — an insurrectionist to the Emperor and a blasphemer to the Sanhedrin.
Nonsense. He never advocated that anyone seize the property of one man by force and give it to some other man.
No, He believed in outconning the conmen sent to trick Him. What He meant was to return to Caesar the graven image on the coin that the Pharisaic spy was carrying on his person, contrary to Mosaic law.
Inasmuch as His reference frame is absolute (wRu & wRv -> u=v), that is quite impossible.
But Karl Rove and Galillean Fishermen for Truth would have nailed (sorry) Him on every single one of those points, and the voters in some “heartland” county would have believed it. They would have deemed your explanations to be legalistic nuancing and even further proof that this Jesus guy is not to be trusted. (Besides, with a name like Jesus, he’d be too ethnic 
)
Church / state separation rules would disqualify Jesus, wouldn’t they?
I always thought libertarians stressed self-reliance. Jesus said if anyone want to go to law with you over your tunic, hand him your cloak as well (Mt 5:40). Jesus fed the masses. If he was libertarian he’d say go buy your own tunic and go buy your own food.
Ask Polycarp whether that is true. Despite whatever you might have always thought, libertarianism and volunteerism are synonyms. There’s a difference between being forced to feed another man against your will, and feeding him because you want to. Jesus wanted to. So does every libertarian I know. And Jesus, of course, allows you the freewill to take His advice or leave it.
Bill Clinton would have beaten Bush like a rented mule.
Given that Kerry was maybe one percent of the vote in Ohio from winning (albiet that he would still have lost the popular vote) it’s silly to suppose that any number of other guys couldn’t have beaten Bush. KERRY could have beaten Bush with a better campaign. This wasn’t the 1972 or 1984 stompings.