AHC: Successful W presidency

Kerry wins in 2004, loses the popular vote. The Kerry administration goes badly with the economy still crashing, and Bush beats Kerry in 2008 in a landslide. By 2012, Bush is credited with keeping the American economy from falling into a second Great Depression.

(2001-2009)

Oh. Well, keep 9/11 from happening. Bush should be able to win re-election on the basis of the recovery from the dot-com crash, and 2008 should be delayed by a couple years.
 

Minty_Fresh

Banned
The economic crash would have been put off for a few years if there was not a spike in oil prices in the mid 2000s. That spike would have been there regardless of Iraq. But Iraq did not help. Have Saddam croak and his successors give in to UN inspectors and things might be a bit better. The housing boom was providing growth. It was unsustainable, sure, but it was providing growth.

Bin Laden being taken out by Clinton in the 90s would help as well, as it would be unlikely that 9/11 could have been arranged without his leadership. This keeps the war on Terror out of things.

Perhaps with that time, Bush could usher in peace between Israel and Palestine. He was notably more trusting of Abu Mazen than most Republicans (and Democrats) at the time, and once Arafat dies one way or another, things might go well.
 
Kerry wins in 2004, loses the popular vote. The Kerry administration goes badly with the economy still crashing, and Bush beats Kerry in 2008 in a landslide. By 2012, Bush is credited with keeping the American economy from falling into a second Great Depression.



Oh. Well, keep 9/11 from happening. Bush should be able to win re-election on the basis of the recovery from the dot-com crash, and 2008 should be delayed by a couple years.

Without 9/11, Bush would retain his pragmatic, anti-interventionist policies
 
He still has a foreign policy team made up of neocons advising military action. More broadly, essentially every US president in the past 100 years has sent US troops into combat somewhere; it seems unlikely that that won't happen under Bush. And once it does, Rumsfeld/Cheney/Wolfowitz/etc. will use it to test out their theories, with OTL's disastrous results.
 

Minty_Fresh

Banned
He still has a foreign policy team made up of neocons advising military action. More broadly, essentially every US president in the past 100 years has sent US troops into combat somewhere; it seems unlikely that that won't happen under Bush. And once it does, Rumsfeld/Cheney/Wolfowitz/etc. will use it to test out their theories, with OTL's disastrous results.
Troops were already in the Balkans when he took over so technically you are right.

But without 9/11, there isn't much reason to overthrow the AlQaeda coddling Taliban. And without ties to AlQaeda, nuclear proliferation becomes more of a sanctions only affair like with Iran, Libya, and North Korea rather than what could have been a rogue state who praised 9/11 having them.

Bush's 2000 election foreign policy team were mostly realists, with one neoconservative in Wolfowitz and one semi in Cheney.
 
- no 9/11. Bush's most notable actions are his tax cuts. Iraq just has some NATO or UN action.
- Without terrorism on people's mind, Bush gets out-debated in 2004 and looses to whoever the Dems nominate. The recession happens under whoever the Dems nominate in 2004
- As a result, Bush looks good in comparison to whoever the Dems nominate in 2004.
 
He still has a foreign policy team made up of neocons advising military action. More broadly, essentially every US president in the past 100 years has sent US troops into combat somewhere; it seems unlikely that that won't happen under Bush. And once it does, Rumsfeld/Cheney/Wolfowitz/etc. will use it to test out their theories, with OTL's disastrous results.

This. The PNAC (Project for a New American Century) people were itching for regime change in Iraq and a muscular foreign policy in the years before 9/11.

To meet the OP's challenge, you need to get rid of both the Iraq War and the 2007-08 financial crisis. Both are within the realm of possibility but both would require a Bush administration which pursued very different policies from OTL. This is difficult because I'm not at all convinced there wouldn't have been an Iraq War if 9/11 never happened and the pursuit of different economic policies is at near-ASB levels of improbability given the ideological predispositions of Bush and his team.
 
Have the faction that was against de-Ba'athization win out in the reconstruction of Iraq. It doesn't happen and the Iraqi army isn't fired. The country is successfully rebuilt and becomes a stable enough state with a small insurgency. The 2006-2007 civil war and the surge don't happen. That, more than anything else is what soured people on him; his approval ratings dropped into the thirties in '06 and never recovered. I think he would finish up in the 45-50% range and be further rehabilitated after being away from the Presidency similar to what actually happened in OTL.
 

Minty_Fresh

Banned
Have the faction that was against de-Ba'athization win out in the reconstruction of Iraq. It doesn't happen and the Iraqi army isn't fired. The country is successfully rebuilt and becomes a stable enough state with a small insurgency. The 2006-2007 civil war and the surge don't happen. That, more than anything else is what soured people on him; his approval ratings dropped into the thirties in '06 and never recovered. I think he would finish up in the 45-50% range and be further rehabilitated after being away from the Presidency similar to what actually happened in OTL.
His approval ratings were not hurt by Iraq that much. They were hurt by the perception of a lack of internal competence as judged by FEMA's reaction to Katrina, the ill advised attempt to partially privatize social security (which he campaigned on, which makes it odd that people were surprised, but whatever..), and the Republican Party scandals of 2006 through Abrahamoff and Foley.
 
Make George W Bush have a successful presidency (2001-2009)

Ahmad Shah Massoud is not assassinated on September 9 in 2001, allowing him to continue to lead his forces into the the Battle of Tora Bora where OBL gets a large caliber round to the face. With Massoud in charge and Bin Laden dead far sooner in this ATL, the Afghan War begins to wind down over the course of 2002/2003. Iraq still gets invaded in 2003, but its very much different in conduct (Turks allow the 4th ID to attack down from the North, Iraqi Army not disbanded, etc). With the Afghan campaign largely over by 2004, an earlier surge is conducted at the first sign of trouble in Iraq so that by 2006 the situation is largely in control there as well.

Domestically, Katrina is butterflied and immigration reform gets passed. As well, the FEC's decision in late 2004 to raise debt to cash ratios is never done, so that the economy isn't as overextended nor as short on asset holdings come 2008. Combine that with Lehman Brothers getting bought out prior to its collapse, and the "Great Recession" ends up largely being like the Dot Com bust in impact.
 
A lot of people would say he had a successful presidency /flamebait

So to make his Presidency more successful:
  • Don't disband the Iraqi army -- use it as a police force and place a figurehead on top instead of Saddam. Rewrite the Iraqi Constitution unilaterally like Japan and Germany and Korea by some White House closet liberal... Goal should be, separation of church and state (no Islamic Republic of Blah in there) whether they follow it is another question but they will thank the West a few generations later. More good POD are OBL gets killed in Tora Bora, OBL simply doesn't exist, etc.
  • Avoid the 2008 recession. Most likely POD is much tougher Sarbanes-Oxley, caused by bigger and many more Enrons / Worldcoms / etc., and a much bigger dot com bust. Maybe a few minor POD is enough for example, executive compensation clawbacks not needing "reckless" or "deliberate" action but just happening if the company is charged and convicted of accounting fraud or incorrect financial statements. A few sentences overlooked by lobbyists and the political elite that years later turns into the basis for prosecution of executives of failed companies, that begins happening routinely. The unintended consequence is "C" level execs are terrified of lying and wasting taxpayer's money. This in turn creates a culture of accountability over the next 6 years or so, so subprime doesn't happen.
  • Much more press coverage and focus on Bush's Africa donations. Due to the fizzle of terrorism this becomes his main focus in the lead up to the election with Kerry. This moves him to the center with some right-leaning liberals voting for him in 2004 and this and poverty somehow become a ballot issue. One idea is the nominee is NOT Kerry, but Clinton, and Bush campaign advisors decide to cast Bush's Africa aid as an anti-poverty crusade so suddenly, Bush becomes known as "compassionate conservatism" and beats Clinton at her own game.
  • Avoiding Katrina through some act-of-god POD, or alternatively all of the above butterflies Katrina to hit an affluent area, so the response isn't botched
 
His approval ratings were not hurt by Iraq that much. They were hurt by the perception of a lack of internal competence as judged by FEMA's reaction to Katrina, the ill advised attempt to partially privatize social security (which he campaigned on, which makes it odd that people were surprised, but whatever..), and the Republican Party scandals of 2006 through Abrahamoff and Foley.

This is a graph of Bush's approval ratings. Katrina was in August 2005 when his negative ratings were just slightly above his approval ratings. They only got irretrievable starting in 2006. I maintain that the surge and the sectarian violence in Iraq during that period is what really did him in because that showed that he had well and truly screwed up in Iraq and was definitely not in control of the situation.
George_W_Bush_approval_ratings.svg.png
 
Top