2004: Kerry Defeats Bush

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?

1. No difference in the wars, as Kerry did not run on ending them and he would not regain the house and senate in 2006. I told people at the time if they want republicans in congress, pray for bush to lose.

2. Katrina is still screwed up. The gov't never does its job right. If Gore was president, the same intelligence failures would have allowed 9-11. So, no difference.

3. Great Recession was caused by Federal Reserve and US housing policy, which would have not changed in Kerry's term.

The difference is if Kerry won in 04, McCain would have easily won 2008 because the recession would be blamed on Kerry. No tea party exists without a black president out side of the liberty movement which started with ron paul. Obama will run and win in 2012 and ironically, the country will be almost identical now other than perhaps the benghazi thing might have not happened (or, it might have been worse being that mccain would have probably done more gun and weapons running to Syria than obama has and is doing) and we wouldn't have universal healthcare. I also think that without a solid democratic majoprity that happened thanks to bush, even obama wouldn't get national healthcare passed because he might not have both houses of congress, though 4 years of mccain could have screwed that up anyway.
 

Deleted member 16736

I agree with Dahveed323 that we're unlikely to see Obama in this timeline. Eight years in the senate (if he doesn't go run for Governor of Illinois in 2010, which was a possibility) as opposed to four will make him a wholly different candidate if he even runs. He won't have a mythos built up around him because he'll actually have spent time in Washington voting on things and, let's be real, probably compromising his principles the way most legislators do.

Beyond that he wouldn't even be the most notorious progressive in this potential 2012 race. John Edwards will be there, likely scandal-free, bastard-free, and wife-free. That means that he'll be able to focus on policiy questions and rhetoric. Thus, he would be a stronger candidate; he may even be prohibitively strong enough to keep Hillary Clinton from jumping in the race. Hell, she'd even be a good VP pick for him after he wins the nomination. Even if the race was just OTL 2008 re-hash, Clinton would benefit from the break from the two-term dynastic break. The point is that I doubt you'll see Obama as much more than an also-ran in this timeline.

I also concur that the Republicans shouldn't be written off in 2012. Without the death of neoconservative "compassionate conservatism" and the obliteration of scads of GOP candidates in 2006 and 2008, the party likely remains more moderate. Any president is going to do SOMETHING to help the economy, even if it isn't a giant stimulus package, and congressional Republicans will go along to maintain their majorities.
 
I agree with Dahveed323 that we're unlikely to see Obama in this timeline. Eight years in the senate (if he doesn't go run for Governor of Illinois in 2010, which was a possibility)

Don't forget the Harold option. Obama could have run for Mayor of Chicago. Indeed with butterflies, Daley might decide to retire earlier, in 2007, and with Kerry the presumed nominee in 2008, Obama wouldn't have to decide between being Mayor or being President. Under those circumstances, I think the Mayorality would be tempting for Obama, and he might well have been in a position to win such a race.
 
As I've said on various other threads with this topic, 2004 was, in hindsight, a poison chalice.

No matter who was in office you'd have:
-Katrina, which will still be a clusterfuck because of the incompetent people in charge of New Orleans and Louisiana. Contrary to popular belief, FEMA did everything by the books for the disaster - only difference this go around is Kanye West says 'John Kerry doesn't care about black people'.
-The Housing Crash and Great Rescission, both of which were decades in the making. Oddly enough, they could be EVEN WORSE - Dubya actually tried to see Fannie May/Freddy Mack reigned in, but Dems in Congress fought like hell to keep it from happening. With Kerry in power, the programs might actually be EXPANDED, causing a bigger crash.
-The various congressional scandals which plagued both parties in 2005/06. This go around, the Dems get the worst of it because they control the White House.
-The worst years of the Iraqi insurgency, only Kerry wanted to pull out of Iraq , so there would be no recovery or Surge. Instead, Iraq will look like Somalia by 2008, with high levels of Iranian influence. Kerry would be the President who 'snatched defeat from the jaws of victory'.
-John Edwards as Vice President. You thought Cheyney was bad, wait until this sleezebag starts producing bastards and supporting his cronyist policies. By 2008, we're lucky if he's still more popular than Spiro Agnew.

So President Kerry gets the worst years of the Bush Presidency, only made worse by his own platform.

The Republicans have a near or total fillibuster-proof majority in the House and Senate. They can and will run anyone in 2008 and win, maybe even see George W. pull a Grover Cleveland.

The Democrats are tarred and feathered to a level the OTL Republicans would have pity on.

The Tea Party stays true to it's Libertarian roots as opposed to getting hijacked by Republicans/Moral Majority folks, and sparks the rise of the Libertarian party as a competitive third party, taking advantage of Republican decadence and the blacklisted Democrats.
 
I don't think much would change. The recession would still hit since the groundwork for much of it was laid in the late '90s and FEMA would probably still have botched Katrina recovery attempts. Most likely, Kerry would have ended up as a one term president and would either have been defeated by a Republican challenger in 08 or would have been dropped from the ballot and replaced by either Obama or Hillary.
 
No. Both the Fed and US housing policy were contributing factors but to suggest they were the primary reasons for the Great Recession is right wing myth.
The collapse of the housing bubble is absolutely the catalyst for the Great Recession.
 
I think if Kerry had won he would still continue the war in Afghanistan and Iraq just to prevent the country from breaking down into anarchy. He may even go against campaign promises and include a troops surge of some kind to try and secure Iraq so it didn't collapse and become a haven for Al-Qaeda. He may be able to begin some sort of limited withdrawal from Iraq completed outside of his first term.

He would have devoted more resources to Afghanistan and there probably would have been more success in removing the Taliban and hunting down members of Al-Qaeda.

Kerry probably ends the low interest rates on credit early on a begins a somewhat smaller Great Recession in 2006 instead of 2007. This all hits and happens after New Orleans is still neglected due to the shortage of resources brought on by the Iraq War. With all of the negativity brought down upon him I don't see Kerry being reelected in 2008. His presidency in short would be an earlier version of Obama's in the sense that he is inheriting all the problems and mistakes from the Bush administration and has to deal with this until he can move forward with his own agenda. Don't expect President Obama in 2008 or universal healthcare.
 
Kerry probably ends the low interest rates on credit early on a begins a somewhat smaller Great Recession in 2006 instead of 2007.


The President's influence on interest rates is negligible. Greenspan was still held in reasonably high regard then. Kerry would have had no influence on rates.
 
First after both George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush being one term presidents, I don't see the Republicans nominating Jeb Bush in 2008 even if he ran. Also we should remember the economy didn't become a really major issue in the 2008 campaign until September. Remember before the economy took over as the biggest issue in the 2008 election, Iraq and foreign policy was still the major story early in the 2008 election cycle. One of the reasons in OTL that Obama was able to beat Hillary was because of her yes vote on the Iraq war resolution.

Iraq & Afghanistan
Now going back to 2004 Kerry flips 120,000 votes in Ohio and he wins. He likely would've appointed somebody like Sam Nunn to be his Secretary of Defense. Calls from liberals for him to end the Iraq war would be strong in 2005 as it continued to become a quagmire. By late 2005/early 2006, Kerry would have had to announce a draw down of troops and a withdrawal by the end of 2007. The pressure would be too strong if the casualties continued to rise through Kerry's first year in office. Kerry would likely say the focus needs to be on Afghanistan and destroying al-Queda. Of course Republicans in congress would've opposed Kerry on this, especially John McCain. This would've the basis behind McCain's run for president in 2008. Kerry would have drawn down troops in Iraq and increased the number of troops in Afghanistan. But al-Queda has already spread around the world and by mid-2007 Kerry would decide to focus on counter-terrorism. For many of the same reasons Obama in OTL pulled out fully in Iraq, Kerry does the same and the Iraq war ends in August of 2007. Iraq eventually falls into civil war.

Hurricane Katrina
Kerry would have likely appointed Richard Serino to be head of FEMA. Serino was Boston's EMS chief and is currently the Deputy Administrator of FEMA in OTL and Kerry supported his nomination in 2009. Serino's experience with state and local emergency management would have helped Kerry more than Michael Brown's experience as International Arabian Horse Association commissioner helped Bush. If Kerry had been on vacation like Bush was when Katrina hit, Kerry would've likely have been at his home in Massachusetts. So there would have no photo of Kerry looking out the window of Air Force One as it flies over the disaster area. Kanye West would not have said on live TV that John Kerry doesn't care about black people. But there still would have been a slow response. Under the Bush administration FEMA was made a part of the Department of Homeland Security, so both departments had overlapping staffs. Kerry likely would not have changed that after taking office because of the issue of counter-terrorism. So much the federal response after the storm would have been the same. But Kerry would have avoided the appearance of looking uncaring because he wouldn't have had an unqualified crony at FEMA and wouldn't have flown over the Gulf Coast on his way back to the White House.

Congress & the Supreme Court
Tom DeLay's scandals still happen and he is gone by the end of 2005. House Speaker Dennis Hastert and new Majority Leader John Boehner are not as partisan as DeLay and have a good working relationship with President Kerry. Considering Kerry's ties with senate he has a good relationship with the GOP controlled senate. They are able to get a few small domestic things done but nothing major. When Justice O'Connor announces her retirement in June of 2005, the battles with the senate would began. Kerry nominates Sonia Sotomayor to replace her and conservatives are strongly opposed to her confirmation. Liberals who had been upset with Kerry over Iraq come to Kerry's and Sotomayor's defense. The confirmation hearings are long and brutal. During Sotomayor's confirmation battle, Chief Justice Rehnquist dies. Kerry not wanting to have another battle on his hands with the senate decides to pick somebody who could be easily confirmed by the GOP controlled senate, while also keeping liberals and Democrats happy. He nominates Senator Patrick Leahy to be the next Chief Justice. Leahy is the ranking Democrat on the Senate's Judiciary committee and because of his ties to the senate his confirmation goes smoother than Sotomayor's. Having no legitimate reason to hold up Sotomayor's nomination any further, she finally is approved by the Judiciary committee and confirmed by the senate. By October of 2005 the Leahy court goes into session shifting the court from conservative to liberal. In the spring of 2008 David Souter decides to retire. President Kerry feeling pressure from African-American supporters who fear the black voters are disillusioned with President Kerry, encourages him to appoint a black nominee. Kerry nominates his Attorney General Deval Patrick to replace Justice Souter. Since this would be a liberal replacing a liberal, conservatives don't put up much opposition. Deval Patrick is confirmed by the senate in August of 2008.

The 2006 Midterm elections
Rep. Ed Markey would have likely ran for and won Kerry's senate seat in a special election in 2005. With Kerry in the White House and the Democratic base upset about the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Democrats are nowhere near as enthused as they were in OTL in 2006. But the GOP scandals still happen (Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff, Mark Foley). The Republican voters are a little more enthused than Democratic voters and the Republicans pick up a small number of seats in the House (maybe 3 or 4). Giving them a 236-199 majority. In the senate there is still a YouTube and cable news and the "Mecaca" gaffe for George Allen still happens. So he still loses narrowly to Jim Webb. DeWine in Ohio, Santorum in Pennsylvania, and Chafee is Rhode Island all still lose. Howard Dean wins the special election to fill Leahy's old senate seat. But Jim Talent in Missouri and Conrad Burns in Montana both win re-election. Giving the Republicans a 51 seat majority in the senate after the 2006 elections.

The Financial crisis of 2008
Kerry appoints Stuart Eizenstat (Clinton's last Deputy Treasury Secretary) to be his his Secretary of the Treasury. Kerry would have wanted to appoint James A. Johnson or Roger Altman to head the Treasury. But their scandals would have prevented them from being able to get confirmed by the Republican controlled senate in early 2005. So Kerry chooses the scandal-less Eizenstat, wanting to avoid a political battle over cabinet nominees. But he still would have nominated Robert Rubin later in 2005 to replace Alan Greenspan and Federal Reserve Chairman. The financial crisis of 2008-2009 still happens (since Rubin played a major roll in it going back to his days as SotT under Clinton). But with Eizenstat at treasury TARP is less likely to focus primarily on the big banks and more of the money would go to smaller local banks who would be more willing to make loans to small businesses. The auto bailout still happens but months earlier.

The 2008 elections
Now considering the financial crisis didn't really hit until the fall of 2008, the primaries and conventions were over by then. The biggest issue from fall of 2007 to spring of 2008 is Kerry ending the Iraq war (and their civil war) and his handling of Afghanistan. During this time (like in OTL) the unemployment rate hovers around 5%. John McCain wins the Republican primaries beating Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Rudy Giuliani and locks up the nomination by early April of 2008. But conservatives criticize McCain for not being conservative enough. Republican voters are not enthused and Kerry leads McCain in most polls by a small margin going into the summer of 2008. McCain feels pressure to pick a more conservative running mate even though he wants to choose Joe Lieberman, Colin Powell, or Lindsay Graham. McCain chooses Kansas Senator Sam Brownback to be his running back to appease the social conservatives in the Republican party. After Labor Day in 2008 the economy and rising unemployment rate starts to become more of an issue. The McCain campaign starts to criticize the Kerry administration on the economy. The Kerry campaign runs ads with a newspaper quote from McCain saying "I’m going to be honest. I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated."

The banking crisis hits and the economy becomes the number one issue. McCain tries to put the blame on the Kerry and Clinton administrations. Kerry puts the blame on Bush and economic policies going back to the Reagan years. Kerry also points out the Phil Gramm is McCain's top economic adviser and Gramm's role in deregulating the banks. The voters believe both parties had a hand in causing the financial crisis. But Kerry and MCain are both in agreement about TARP. Brownback privately voices his opposition to TARP but to shows solidarity with McCain and votes for it. The finacial crisis gives Kerry the chance to use the bully pulpit and the power of incumbency. Kerry in an Oval Office address proposes New Deal type of stimulus policies to get Americans back to work. McCain and congressional Republicans criticize Kerry's "big government" plans but they offer no concise message as an alternative plan. McCain position on Iraq and his lack of details on fixing the economy hurts him going into election day. Kerry defeats McCain in the general election. This time he wins the popular vote also.

John Kerry/John Edwards (284)
John McCain/Sam Brownback (254)

genusmap.php
 
I really just don't see Kerry winning the 2008 election. If he withdraws from Iraq, he gets blamed for that quagmire and failing to "stay the course" as Bush urged. Hurricane Katrina still happens, and even if Kerry's FEMA handles it better than the way it was handled in OTL, it still would've been an ugly mess that is on Kerry's hands during his first year in office. An unfriendly, obstructionist Republican Congress probably prevents him from getting much major legislation passed, and when the financial crisis that was decades in the making hits in 2008, he'll get blamed for that too.

The Republicans probably still nominate McCain; their nomination process is almost akin to a royal dynasty, with the previous cycle's second place finisher almost always getting the nomination four years down the road. I think he seizes on a chance to run against a weak Democratic incumbent while also promising Republican voters that he can avoid repeating the mistakes of the one-term disappointment whom he lost the primary election to in 2000. Interestingly, if McCain indeed wins the 2008 nomination and runs against a Kerry/Edwards ticket, we probably never see the political rise of Sarah Palin, who was picked on the OTL ticket because the McCain campaign desperately wanted to attract women voters and do away with the novelty of the Democrats nominating the first African-American presidential candidate. I think its way more likely McCain selects the man he always wanted as his running mate: Joe Lieberman.

A more moderate GOP ticket with decades of political experience and bipartisan credentials against a President Kerry who is probably seen as a failure by late in his first term and who is likely forced to drop Edwards from the ticket when his affairs become public. I'm definitely thinking McCain/Lieberman beats Kerry/Last Minute Replacement
 
I really just don't see Kerry winning the 2008 election. If he withdraws from Iraq, he gets blamed for that quagmire and failing to "stay the course" as Bush urged. Hurricane Katrina still happens, and even if Kerry's FEMA handles it better than the way it was handled in OTL, it still would've been an ugly mess that is on Kerry's hands during his first year in office. An unfriendly, obstructionist Republican Congress probably prevents him from getting much major legislation passed, and when the financial crisis that was decades in the making hits in 2008, he'll get blamed for that too.

By 2005-2006 and definitely by 2007 the majority of the American public wanted out of Iraq. Americans could clearly see by 2006 that the U.S. was not going to "win" the war in Iraq, whatever a win in Iraq would've meant at that point. By 2006 we all knew there was no WMD in Iraq and that Saddam had no connection to the 9/11 attacks. So what would have been the point of staying? Staying in Iraq didn't help Bush in his second term in OTL when it came to his approval ratings. The Iraq war was lost back in 2003 when the Bush administration let Saddam's soldiers keep their weapons and didn't secure the boarders to keep al-Queda out of Iraq. By the time Kerry would've became president in 2005, any chance of "winning" in Iraq was long gone. If Kerry had stayed the course in Iraq he would've turned into LBJ. What Vietnam became to LBJ, Iraq would've became to President Kerry.

Plus we must remember Kerry served in Vietnam, he knew what it was like to fight in a war that his side had no chance of winning. That would also play a huge role in Kerry's decision making. Also remember many of the people who voted for Kerry in 2004 (the Democratic base) were not supporters of the Iraq war to begin with. And Kerry would've known if he didn't do something to end America's involvement in Iraq, his base would not be there to support him in 2008. He would've saw anti-war protesters at his campaign events and outside of the White House (or as close to the WH they could get to). Staying the course would've hurt Kerry in 08 more than it would've helped him. All these factors make me believe Kerry would've pulled out of Iraq before the 08 elections. He had nothing to gain by staying in Iraq just to say he stayed the course.

The Republicans probably still nominate McCain; their nomination process is almost akin to a royal dynasty, with the previous cycle's second place finisher almost always getting the nomination four years down the road. I think he seizes on a chance to run against a weak Democratic incumbent while also promising Republican voters that he can avoid repeating the mistakes of the one-term disappointment whom he lost the primary election to in 2000. Interestingly, if McCain indeed wins the 2008 nomination and runs against a Kerry/Edwards ticket, we probably never see the political rise of Sarah Palin, who was picked on the OTL ticket because the McCain campaign desperately wanted to attract women voters and do away with the novelty of the Democrats nominating the first African-American presidential candidate. I think its way more likely McCain selects the man he always wanted as his running mate: Joe Lieberman.
Another thing that nobody is mentioning is the changing demographics of America and the Republican party's base inability to include new and different faces. McCain like in OTL is going to have some real problems within his own party. His policy on immigration is not the same as most Republican voters. Does he still flip-flop on that issue to appease the Republican base like he did in OTL (remember "build the fence"). As I've said most Americans wanted out of Iraq (even independents) by 2007 and definitely by 2008. So McCain would have trouble gaining votes because of his Iraq policy. And what is McCain's economic policy after the economy starts to tank? What is he proposing to fix it? Are they the same policies Bush enacted (tax cuts and more deregulation)? McCain is just not going to win by default because the economy starts to tank under Kerry. In 1980 Reagan had a clear economic policy and record as governor to point at. The same thing with FDR in 1932. McCain has no economic policy. He even admitted that he wasn't strong on economic issues. Don't you think Kerry would've pointed that out? Kerry could have used the power of incumbency to look like he was taking action (even if it was just all theater). Plus he probably "bails out" the auto industry earlier in 2008 which helps him in states like Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. McCain beating Kerry in 2008 as the economy starts to sour is not a lock. McCain would still have to tell the voters how he'd fix the economy, and you know the Kerry campaign was ask him for specifics.

A more moderate GOP ticket with decades of political experience and bipartisan credentials against a President Kerry who is probably seen as a failure by late in his first term and who is likely forced to drop Edwards from the ticket when his affairs become public. I'm definitely thinking McCain/Lieberman beats Kerry/Last Minute Replacement
No way the Republican party leaders and the base supports the Lieberman pick. Lieberman still has a majority Democratic voting record in the senate. Lieberman would've voted to confirm Kerry's SCOTUS nominees that helped turn the court more liberal. Lieberman was (is) still pro-choice which really would not be acceptable to the social conservatives. McCain himself already has a problem with conservatives thinking he's not conservative enough, so picking Lieberman would just make that problem much worse. If he did that you might see conservative's start a movement to draft somebody like Huckabee to run as an Independent.

Plus as somebody said earlier with John Edwards as Vice-President he's not running for President in 2006-2007 and he likely never meets Rielle Hunter. So there would be no affair with her and no getting her pregnant and trying to cover that up. Edwards met Hunter at a bar in New York City. The V-POTUS is not going to be hanging out at a bar in NYC unnoticed. So the Rielle Hunter scandal would've been avoided. In fact after Elizabeth Edwards' death in 2010, Vice-President Edwards would likely have a lot of sympathy from the American public as the grieving widow with two young children. Who knows what that means for him going into 2012.
 
Last edited:
In 1980 Reagan had a clear economic policy and record as governor to point at. The same thing with FDR in 1932. McCain has no economic policy.

While everything else you're saying is spot-on, I will point out that FDR's economic rhetoric in 1932 wasn't ideological, just anti-Hoover. Hoover started spending (way too little), so FDR attacked him and called for a balanced budget etc.

I also can definitely see McCain picking Lieberman without Karl Rove to stop him, with disastrous consequences.
 
again ... No Obama ... No Jeb

Obama keeps getting mentioned because he exists, politically, in OTL ... but he would have been just another senator ... worse, he would have been under a microscope as the sole black senator and with a strange name to boot ... without the iraq war issue to help him against hillary and the economic chaos to help him against mccain, and the overall Bush fatigue ... Obama would not have emerged ... he truly was an anomoly in the right place at the right time.

And ...

With two one term Bushes, Jeb will enter a race with that albatross around his neck amd the drumbeat of the media and his primary opponents saying, we want to win the white house ... and keep it! Bushes are Losers will be the theme and it will stick.
 
Obama keeps getting mentioned because he exists, politically, in OTL ... but he would have been just another senator ... worse, he would have been under a microscope as the sole black senator and with a strange name to boot ... without the iraq war issue to help him against hillary and the economic chaos to help him against mccain, and the overall Bush fatigue ... Obama would not have emerged ... he truly was an anomoly in the right place at the right time.

And ...

With two one term Bushes, Jeb will enter a race with that albatross around his neck amd the drumbeat of the media and his primary opponents saying, we want to win the white house ... and keep it! Bushes are Losers will be the theme and it will stick.


One other note though. between 1952 and 2004, with a single exception, there was always a Bush, Dole, or Nixon at one place or another in teh Republican Nominees. (both OTL and TTL)
1952, 56: Nixon VP
1960, 69, 72: Nixon as P
1976 Dole as VP
1980, 84: Bush as VP
1988, 1992, 2000, 2004: a Bush as P
1996: Dole as P.

The only exception in this long time period is 1964. Jeb might have a chance in 2008 or 2012 just on sheer inertia
 
It's very nice to see somebody thinks Kerry can win a second term. I'm pretty sure even if he lost, it'd be a close race, and as I said before, I don't think Kerry would be any more maligned than Bush Sr. - probably seen as good with foreign policy but not so good with domestic.

I'm still not sure that McCain would honestly go too far to oppose Kerry. As far as politics go, the two are fairly close - in fact, Kerry discussed McCain as a possible running mate in 2004.
 
It's very nice to see somebody thinks Kerry can win a second term. I'm pretty sure even if he lost, it'd be a close race, and as I said before, I don't think Kerry would be any more maligned than Bush Sr. - probably seen as good with foreign policy but not so good with domestic.

I'm still not sure that McCain would honestly go too far to oppose Kerry. As far as politics go, the two are fairly close - in fact, Kerry discussed McCain as a possible running mate in 2004.


I just don't see McCain having a cakewalk to the White House like others think, just because the economy started to get bad late in the campaign. I remember his reaction during OTL to the financial crisis and he looked very unprepared to deal with it. I remember him wanting to cancel one of the debates so he and Obama could go back to Washington to work on TARP with the rest of the senate.

In TTL I think Kerry could use incumbency and the bully pulpit to at least put up a fight and look like a leader. Maybe call for a stimulus with a lot of infrastructure projects. Maybe even calling for a new WPA.
 
I just don't see McCain having a cakewalk to the White House like others think, just because the economy started to get bad late in the campaign. I remember his reaction during OTL to the financial crisis and he looked very unprepared to deal with it. I remember him wanting to cancel one of the debates so he and Obama could go back to Washington to work on TARP with the rest of the senate.

In TTL I think Kerry could use incumbency and the bully pulpit to at least put up a fight and look like a leader. Maybe call for a stimulus with a lot of infrastructure projects. Maybe even calling for a new WPA.

It was a foreign policy election with a sudden economic sidetrack at the end, but even the economy's easily tied back to foreign policy - I've heard Democrats claim, correctly or incorrectly, that part of what brought the economy down was all the spending on Iraq. So it's easy for Kerry to blame his previous opponent and I'm sure it will win over the liberals easily - I'm not as sure about independents. I think if he wound down Iraq though, it'd keep him in some favor with independents, whereas McCain as a hawk in favor of the war would probably lose some points. Plus, just as Bush made social issues into wedge issues against Kerry, he can return the favor here. This on top of his foreign policy credits... I mean, you can't guarantee a win, but he can make up for lost ground.
 
Top