2004: Kerry Defeats Bush

[Evil Opus]

Suppose Ohio turns blue in the 2004 election, thus elevating John Kerry to the White House and making President Bush a single-termer. How does this affect the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Is the federal response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005 handled better? Does the U.S. still suffer the onset of the Great Recession in 2008?

 

[vultan]

If the POD is Kerry narrowly winning just Ohio (I assume because of better ground game), then Bush probably still narrowly wins the popular vote. So, that'd be two elections in a row where the Electoral College victor didn't win the popular vote. Make of that what you will.

 

[Sabot Cat]

President Kerry continues the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War for the duration of his term for practical reasons, and is slammed with Hurricane Katrina and the Great Recession. George W. Bush avoids being associated with all of this, and thus the Republican Party does not suffer from his negative public image. John McCain campaigns against Kerry and wins handily. It is also possible that George W. Bush runs against John Kerry a second time. From there McCain either gets (re-)elected in 2012 or is beaten by Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton (probably the latter).

 

[tiggerfan]

Well of course life is perfection in a matter of weeks

Seriously the above answer seems to have it.

 

[Paul V McNutt]

He would not have a friendly enough Congress to enact health care. I believe in the economic cycles so Kerry loses to John McCain in 2008. bBecause there is no stimulad package the economy is a lot worse. mMcCain loses to Obama or Hillary in 2012.

 

[Hollis Hurlbut]

I would expect a Kerry victory to butterfly McCain's nomination. McCain was nominated in a year when everyone expected the Republican to lose. Like Dole, McCain faced few serious competitors for the nomination. If Kerry had squeaked into office in 2004 and then presided over a financial collapse, the GOP would have been much more bullish about their chances in 2008, resulting in a more crowded field and heavier spending.

The political landscape would be radically different in many ways. The Bush brand would be intact, and partially vindicated by Kerry's ignominious term, at least in the eyes of Republicans. Instead of renominating W, the faction would line up behind Jeb Bush, a marked improvement over his brother while being ideologically almost identical. In all likelihood, McCain wouldn't even attempt to run against Jeb, who would face a handful of regional pygmies (Giuliani in the east, Romney in the west, and Ron Paul taking the anti-war 10%). Jeb would sew it up early, name a midwestern woman as his running mate, and defeat Kerry by a modest but incontestable margin.

 

[Derek Jackson]

I agree a Republican wins in 08, does Obama carry 40 or 45 states when he runs against the deeply unpopular regime, associated with banker power in 2012

Does he become more radical than otl?

 

[JVM]

I imagine Kerry's presidency being a bit reminiscent of George H. W. Bush in terms of public opinion - he's well-liked in a lot of ways, very successful in foreign policy issues and seen as a strong incumbent going into the election season. The economic issues dominate the campaign and he loses by a fair margin, but he's not really blamed directly for it, and even his opponent John McCain is seen by his party as too gentle with his opponent. Kerry exits graciously and remains well-liked, working well with President McCain due to their friendship OTL. There's a lot of early buzz about him running again in four more years but it never comes to be as he retires, remaining active as a diplomat.

 

[freivolk]

I agree a Republican wins in 08, does Obama carry 40 or 45 states when he runs against the deeply unpopular regime, associated with banker power in 2012

Does he become more radical than otl?

I don´t think you can count the GOP so easy out in 2012. Obama won in 2012 even with a bad economy, because the public still mostly blamed the GOP for it. I´m also not sure, if the stimulus package was really that helpfull. Maybe 2009 will be a worser year without it, but that could actually make the economy in 2012 relative better. The GOP would claim: "Look, the worst is behind us, but we still need four more years. Don´t let the Dems mess it up again!"

 

[Dahveed323]

President Kerry continues the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War for the duration of his term for practical reasons, and is slammed with Hurricane Katrina and the Great Recession. George W. Bush avoids being associated with all of this, and thus the Republican Party does not suffer from his negative public image. John McCain campaigns against Kerry and wins handily. It is also possible that George W. Bush runs against John Kerry a second time. From there McCain either gets (re-)elected in 2012 or is beaten by Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton (probably the latter).

I don't see how Obama emerges in this timeframe. He had an opportunity mostly because of the timing, and if he was running in 2016 against McCain the economy would be wholly different and the one term Bush scenario would reduce or eliminate anti-Bush fatigue by this point.

Secondly, with Bush as a one termer, following his father, the party is not gonna nominate him again. It won't. Nixon was an anomoly from another time. Politicsl parties and voters don't like loses, plain and simple, and the Bush name would be tarnished with the one-term moniker ... thus, one consequence is Jeb's name is not tossed around much as a possible 2016 or later candidate.

Again no Obama of any major significance here beyond his Il senate seat and Bush name is cast as a loser, one term brand overall.

McCain for sure runs in 2012 and but might not get the nomination.

 

[Deleted member 16736]

As for Iraq, it's unlikely that you'll see any similar sort of strategy unfolding in 2007 and 2008. That means no surge, but I doubt you'll see a draw-down of troops during Kerry's (first or only) term. Afghanistan is the "good war" even to Obama in OTL 2008, so it's unlikely that we'll see a draw-down there, either.

Interestingly, given their friendship, I could see Kerry asking McCain to join his cabinet as Secretary of State or Defense. McCain was the most prominent supporter of the surge outside the Bush administration so if he accepts, he might urge for a similar strategy, although I doubt he'd be heard out.

The recession is going to occur, but the relief might go a little differently.

As for 2008, I'd bet on Romney capturing the nomination against George Allen in a McCain-less field. Romney is probably in his second term as governor of Massachusetts and would run on his business experience (calling it "economic" expertise). I'm unsure whether he'd be able to beat Kerry; I am sure it would be the most boring election in the history of elections.

 

[fb111a]

With Katrina and the financial crisis, I think Kerry is in trouble.

One butterfly - the Heller decision could very well go the other way if Kerry is making Supreme court appointments in 2005.

 

[The Kiat]

The hurricane does deserve mention. It's gonna hit N'Orleans no matter who is President. I can't see clean up being any easier. FEMA is still incompetent and unprepared to deal with truly monumental disasters. Same red tape is going to gum up the works. I can see him blame the Republicans in Congress for making things difficult (and there would be some truth to it too... after all politicians care more about the next election cycle than actually helping anyone).

McCain was nominated in a year when everyone expected the Republican to lose. Like Dole, McCain faced few serious competitors for the nomination.

If the candidate doesn't plan on getting elected, why is he wasting the peoples' time (and his own)?

"We have to put on a show of force!"

...or you could actually put in an effort. That's the problem with two large The Parties. Better to contribute to the campaigns of the Libertarians or Greens or someone who will actually try to get his message across.

 

[Dunning Kruger]

I dont think Katrina would have been nearly as bad for Kerry as it was for Bush. The state and local governments always have first responder responsibilities for these types of things. It was the Gov and Mayor that really screwed up (I have always loved the irony that Bush took the biggest hit for the thing I believe he did least wrong while avoiding blame for so many foibles). Bush took the blame because he looked so detached, said stupid things and had a crony running FEMA.

It's really hard to speculate how the financial crisis might have gone differently. Bernanke was nominated by Bush to replace Greenspan. No idea who Kerry would have had nominated. No idea who would have been at Treasury in liu of Paulson either. It is plausible although unlikely that that some of the crisis could have been nipped in the bud had different people been there. I wouldnt bet on it though. Too many Dems like Summers were involved in creating policies that both directly and indirectly led to the crisis.

A couple of things that would have been different. Very possibly no medicare part D and a tax hike in 2005/2006. Budget deficit would have been much better lessoning the amount of debt the US has accumulated. Outside chance RomneyCare, er, I mean ObamaCare gets pushed through in 2006 with Kerry.

If Kerry is an epic fail like people are saying, Hilary runs in 2008 against him and probably wins. How she does in the general depends on the Rep candidate. Maybe Jeb Bush runs in '08. No way GW gets the R nom in 08 if he loses in 04.

Lot of potential butterflies but the thing to remember is Kerry was a horrific candidate, like McCain, Romney, Dukakis, and Mondale. You need a POD to get him to win in 2004 rather than a little bit of luck.

 

[Evil Opus]

I think McCain still wins the nomination in '08, perhaps even having an easier time of it than he did in OTL. He could have used Bush's single term to argue that, had the party gone with him (McCain) in 2000, the Republican Party would still control the White House. I'm also thinking he beats Kerry, whose second term is going to coincide with the worst natural disaster in U.S. history, the nadir of the Iraq War (even if Kerry decides to withdraw some/all troops), and the 2008 financial crisis (which was decades in the making).

 

[ProfJets]

I would expect a Kerry victory to butterfly McCain's nomination. McCain was nominated in a year when everyone expected the Republican to lose. Like Dole, McCain faced few serious competitors for the nomination. If Kerry had squeaked into office in 2004 and then presided over a financial collapse, the GOP would have been much more bullish about their chances in 2008, resulting in a more crowded field and heavier spending.

Agree that Jeb Bush would run in 2008; something he might have done anyways if his brother had been popular, rather than sporting a 30% approval rate. And in this situation, I think he would get the nod. Minor disagreement: 2008 looked hard for the GOP, but Democratic victory didn't seem inevitable until the economic crisis that September. The election looked close before then; in fact McCain was in the lead in the first week of September.

 

[Shadowlord]

hcallega's Reporting for Duty timeline is probably the best take on this scenario I've seen yet. It only goes to the '08 election, but it is a great read.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=214146

In my opinion, it's a guaranteed Republican victory in '08, assuming the Great Recession still starts before the election. The real unknown is '12. We don't know exactly what steps a hypothetical Republican administration might take to tackle the Great Recession. If there is no stimulus or a lesser stimulus, the economy will likely be worse off. Also, the Democrats are less likely to be as obstructionist as the GOP has been in OTL, which could help attract moderates to them. The Tea Party is also completely gone.

Personally, I suspect the Democrats would take the White House back in 2012 as the likely nominees would be either Hillary or Obama and either one is a far stronger candidate than Romney could ever dream of being.

 

[Hollis Hurlbut]

Another consequence of a Kerry victory is that he will appoint certain Democrats to high-profile national positions, turning them into future contenders for the presidency. As VP, Edwards would be given a big boost, which could produce major problems for the Democrats down the line. Hillary Clinton might serve in a Kerry administration, while a freshman senator like Obama would probably not. The Kerry administration will propel many formerly obscure Democrats to greater name recognition. People who fell by the wayside in OTL, like Russ Feingold, might remain at the center of Democratic politics.

 

[Lost the game]

On the topic of the Tea Party, could we see a Democratic equivalent? Something like Occupy Wall Street but with an actual platform?

 

[Turquoise Blue]

On the topic of the Tea Party, could we see a Democratic equivalent? Something like Occupy Wall Street but with an actual platform?

Unlikely, because the left is already fairly integrated in the party.