WI: John Kerry Won 2004?

[The_Russian]

As the title says, what happens if John Kerry won 2004? Nothing else in the election changes other than Kerry gets more votes in Ohio to beat out Bush. Say maybe it’s a reverse of 2000 where instead of Florida being very narrowly won by Bush in 2000, in 2004 Ohio is very narrowly won by Kerry.
In this scenario Bush still wins the popular vote by over 50%, and republicans still control the house and senate.
Let’s assume Rehnquist still dies in 2005, but Sandra Day O’Connor waits for a Republican president to retire, and Edwards still has an affair.
How do the Great Recession and Housing Bubble go? How does the 2008 election turn out? Is Edward’s caught? Does he resign? If so who replaces him? How does the 2008 Republican primary go? Is it McCain? Romney? Does Dubuya pull a Cleveland?

 

[Amadeus]

As the title says, what happens if John Kerry won 2004? Nothing else in the election changes other than Kerry gets more votes in Ohio to beat out Bush. Say maybe it’s a reverse of 2000 where instead of Florida being very narrowly won by Bush in 2000, in 2004 Ohio is very narrowly won by Kerry.
In this scenario Bush still wins the popular vote by over 50%, and republicans still control the house and senate.
Let’s assume Rehnquist still dies in 2005, but Sandra Day O’Connor waits for a Republican president to retire, and Edwards still has an affair.
How do the Great Recession and Housing Bubble go? How does the 2008 election turn out? Is Edward’s caught? Does he resign? If so who replaces him? How does the 2008 Republican primary go? Is it McCain? Romney? Does Dubuya pull a Cleveland?

Given Bush's popularity with conservatives, I could see him winning the nomination a third time in '08 and beating Kerry in the general election.

 

[Derek Jackson]

How likely is this to create the mood to change the electoral college?

 

[The_Russian]

Given Bush's popularity with conservatives, I could see him winning the nomination a third time in '08 and beating Kerry in the general election.

It’s possible, but I’m really wondering about if he even decides to or follows his father’s footsteps, and if he even remains that popular later on. Some republicans in 2008, and even more in 2012 already had neutral-negative opinions of Bush. I also don’t know how much of the recession is blamed on Kerry or Bush, along with how unpopular Bush becomes with no WMDs and the Iraq war continuing.

 

[The_Russian]

How likely is this to create the mood to change the electoral college?

I imagine it becomes more bi-partisan since republicans now have “our guy” example, but some democrats could also change their mind and see what happened to Bush as Karma. Idk. But overall more bi-partisan. I don’t think it becomes an amendment personally. I could see more states go the Maine and Nebraska Route of having split electors among electoral districts. The growing popularity of independent commissions drawing districts could also be promoted as a way for more representative presidential elections

 

[troosvelt_68]

Biggest impact is SCOTUS

He gets to replace Rehnquist as Chief and possibly O'Connor assuming she retires

Also likely replaces the two justices who quit under Obama

So 6-3 liberal court pontentially

 

[The_Russian]

Biggest impact is SCOTUS

He gets to replace Rehnquist as Chief and possibly O'Connor assuming she retires

Also likely replaces the two justices who quit under Obama

So 6-3 liberal court pontentially

In the op I’m assuming he doesn’t get O’Connor’s spot as part of the reason she retired was because a Republican was president.
For Stephens I see it as unlikely as the decisions which caused him to retire wouldn’t occur until the late 2000’s-2010.

Stevens said that his decision to retire from the Court was initially triggered when he stumbled on several sentences when delivering his oral dissent in the 2010 landmark case Citizens United v. FEC. Stevens said "I took that as a warning sign that maybe I've been around longer than I should."

From Wikipedia
Souter is really likely so Kerry could get two justices, but I could also see him retiring later in Kerry’s term, and possibly creating a Scalia vacancy situation depending how close it is to the election...
Kerry is getting at least 1 justice, and 2 vacancies. Depending on WHEN Souter retires it could be 2. If he retires late I’m wondering how that further impacts the 2008 election.

 

[Snowstalker]

In 2004, the War on Terror was broadly popular and the Iraq War still had majority (albeit waning) support. Kerry came so close chiefly due to having a much more popular domestic platform on healthcare and the economy (particularly manufacturing, which is why he targeted Ohio as the pivotal state rather than Florida). Ironically, however, this particular scenario (as opposed to a broader swing which would give Kerry a PV win and possibly at least one house of Congress in Democratic hands) would be a lame duck on domestic policy and only able to act on foreign policy. Based on his platform, Kerry would conduct an orderly withdrawal from Iraq while increasing troop commitments in Afghanistan. Iraq would (as OTL) be highly unstable and would probably end up as an Iranian partner. This, combined with the Great Recession, would probably kill his chances of winning re-election unless he could successfully capture or kill bin Laden; Dubya might run again, but I think it's equally likely that he steps aside for Jeb, who would probably beat McCain/Romney/Huckabee (remember, this isn't 2016--in fact, Trump was a Kerry supporter in 2004 and a Clinton supporter in 2008!) His main legacy, as stated above, would be a more liberal Supreme Court.

 

[troosvelt_68]

In the op I’m assuming he doesn’t get O’Connor’s spot as part of the reason she retired was because a Republican was president.
For Stephens I see it as unlikely as the decisions which caused him to retire wouldn’t occur until the late 2000’s-2010.

From Wikipedia
Souter is really likely so Kerry could get two justices, but I could also see him retiring later in Kerry’s term, and possibly creating a Scalia vacancy situation depending how close it is to the election...
Kerry is getting at least 1 justice, and 2 vacancies. Depending on WHEN Souter retires it could be 2. If he retires late I’m wondering how that further impacts the 2008 election.

Part of the reason was a GOP POTUS but part was the health of her spouse, who had advanced dementia, so she might not have had a choice

 

[The_Russian]

Part of the reason was a GOP POTUS but part was the health of her spouse, who had advanced dementia, so she might not have had a choice

For a simplicity’s sake I’m just going to assume that she waits and Romney, McCain, or Bush get to fill her spot

 

[The_Russian]

In 2004, the War on Terror was broadly popular and the Iraq War still had majority (albeit waning) support. Kerry came so close chiefly due to having a much more popular domestic platform on healthcare and the economy (particularly manufacturing, which is why he targeted Ohio as the pivotal state rather than Florida). Ironically, however, this particular scenario (as opposed to a broader swing which would give Kerry a PV win and possibly at least one house of Congress in Democratic hands) would be a lame duck on domestic policy and only able to act on foreign policy. Based on his platform, Kerry would conduct an orderly withdrawal from Iraq while increasing troop commitments in Afghanistan. Iraq would (as OTL) be highly unstable and would probably end up as an Iranian partner. This, combined with the Great Recession, would probably kill his chances of winning re-election unless he could successfully capture or kill bin Laden; Dubya might run again, but I think it's equally likely that he steps aside for Jeb, who would probably beat McCain/Romney/Huckabee (remember, this isn't 2016--in fact, Trump was a Kerry supporter in 2004 and a Clinton supporter in 2008!) His main legacy, as stated above, would be a more liberal Supreme Court.

Great points! Except for Trump

https://www.cnn.com/2016/10/31/politics/trump-voting-for-bush-on-imus/index.html
Interesting that you thought up Jeb! I just have a feeling if it’s a Bush it’s W. and Jeb! has an RFK type of roll setting him up for the future, but I don’t think Jeb! would be the head of the ticket since it’s so close to his brother’s presidency. I could very well see him as a VP though! I don’t know why I didn’t remember Jeb! Existed. Kinda wondering what comes of Obama tbh. Could he get the dem nomination in 2012 or would that be more likely for Hillary?

 

[marathag]

How likely is this to create the mood to change the electoral college?

Almost Zero chance. Low population States know they get screwed if the EC goes away.

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

I could see more states go the Maine and Nebraska Route of having split electors among electoral districts. The growing popularity of independent commissions drawing districts could also be promoted as a way for more representative presidential elections

I don't think people would want electoral votes apportioned by electoral districts. That would just mean a gerrymandered White House. Maine has two Congressional districts which limits the amount of gerrymandering, Nebraska has three which allows a little more but still not much, but it would be a big problem in states like Pennsylvania.

Almost Zero chance. Low population States know they get screwed if the EC goes away.

The electoral college doesn't give that much of an advantage to smaller states. The main issue in terms of power isn't electoral votes per person but how likely a state is to flip. Presidential candidates have little incentive to target Wyoming voters because Wyoming isn't a swing state, having gone red in every presidential election since 1968. Of course if electoral votes were apportioned by the statewide popular vote, then there might be more incentive to campaign in smaller states, but even then rounding error would mean little incentive to campaign in states with three electoral votes unless the winner was in doubt or there was a chance of winning more than 83.3% of the vote, which would mean the difference between getting all 3 electoral votes and splitting them. Also under a system of apportioning electors by statewide popular vote, states with only 4 electoral votes would only be worth campaigning in if there was a question of whether or not a candidate would win 75% or more of the vote. With a POD in the 20th or early 21st century going with a national popular vote is not ASB.

 

[Whanztastic]

The SCOTUS question is tricky because Republicans control the Senate. Arlen Specter is Chair of the Judiciary, so he would definitely allow hearings to replace Rehnquist and is not going to stonewall but when it gets to a general vote, Kerry is likely going to have to have a lot of negotiation on the candidate.

He might be in a situation where he elevates one of the current SCOTUS judges to Chief (shorter tenure) and then nominates a replacement Associate. It is a little convergent, but Garland seems possible.

 

[Reef]

2004: Kerry/Edwards def. Bush/Cheney 271-268, 48.4%-50.6%
2008: J. Bush/Romney def. Kerry/Edwards 300-238, 51.4%-47.2%
2012: J. Bush/Romney def. Clinton/Kaine 273-265, 49.2%-47.9%
2016: Feingold/Obama def. Romney/Martinez 315-223, 49.7%-48.2%

 

[The_Russian]

The SCOTUS question is tricky because Republicans control the Senate. Arlen Specter is Chair of the Judiciary, so he would definitely allow hearings to replace Rehnquist and is not going to stonewall but when it gets to a general vote, Kerry is likely going to have to have a lot of negotiation on the candidate.

He might be in a situation where he elevates one of the current SCOTUS judges to Chief (shorter tenure) and then nominates a replacement Associate. It is a little convergent, but Garland seems possible.

Interesting. I wonder how possible a Chief Justice Ginsburg would be

 

[Whanztastic]

Interesting. I wonder how possible a Chief Justice Ginsburg would be

Well, it isn’t the Kerry POD, but in my signature TL, a Democrat wins the 2004 Presidential election but has a Republican Senate and this scenario happens - Ginsburg is appointed as Chief Justice, which Republicans begrudgingly allow given her relative age, and then negotiate a more moderate Associate replacement.

I’m uncertain if O’Connor would retire in this scenario. I think she would wait a little longer to see how Kerry is governing, but then Rehnquist’s death could allow for a “grand bargain” - the Senate GOP selects O’Connor’s replacement in exchange for allowing Kerry’s pick - literally a West Wing episode.

 

[The_Russian]

the Senate GOP selects O’Connor’s replacement in exchange for allowing Kerry’s pick - literally a West Wing episode.

Eh. Im assuming she waits it out, but has this even happened before in American history?

 

[Whanztastic]

Negotiated nominates, yes, but “one conservative and one liberal” I’m not sure. There hasn’t been the explicit partisan and ideological sorting of justices until after Warren Court. Souter for example was nominated by Bush but became known as a liberal. This was seen as a shame by Republicans in retrospect, and is part of the founding myth of the Federalist Society.

There is probably a Republican nominated Appeals Court justice who would be acceptable to Senate Democrats - Planned Parenthood v. Casey level pro-choice should be the primary requirement. But might be hard to find. Sotomayor was initially appointed to the Circuit Court by HW then Clinton elevated her to Appeals, which was part of the appeal for Obama’s nomination so she could also be a choice.

 

[The_Russian]

Assuming either O’Connor waits it out or her replacement is a conservative judge who is negotiated on, how does 2008 go? Specifically who has the best shot at winning the primary and how likely/unlikely is it for W. to come back?