Impact of 3 one-term presidencies: Bush, Kerry, McCain?

So, here’s a what if:

Kerry-Edwards beats Bush-Cheney in 2004 before losing to McCain-VP in 2008. But in this scenario we have a delayed recession that begins after McCain takes office, leading to a Democratic Wave in 2010/democratic gerrymandering and McCain losing to an unspecified Democratic President in 2012.

So what is the impact on US Politics if we have three one-term presidents in a row in the new millennium?

2001-2005: Bush Cheney
2005-2009: Kerry Edwards
2009-2013: McCain + VP
 
Well, from Van Buren to Buchanan we had nearly nine administration's in a row that were one term or less which led to a degree of instability and polarization (the Civil War saw the first president to be elected to two terms since Jackson). Very likely this series of modern day presidencies shows a great deal of political shift and a country divided. The country is going to have severe issues dealing with terrorism, the economy, etc as the Executive's focus continually swings every four years.
 
The bigger impact will be in the change in policies from President to President, not that we'd have multiple one term Presidencies in a row which is fairly common. From 1953 to 1989 only two Presidents - Ike and Reagan - were elected to two full terms. In fact, having every President from 1993 to 2017 be re-relected is what's unusual.
 
Republicans would likely see 2004 as a fluke as Bush was still extremely popular with the base at that time and I doubt Kerry pulls out a win in both the popular and electoral vote unless Bush's term is significantly worst than OTL. Kerry has a hellish term that consists of a hostile Republican Majority in Congress throughout the entire term, Katrina, which is handled better than OTL, but not enough to where Kerry goes unscathed from it, the fallout in Iraq and Afghanistan (which he's wrongfully blamed for), rising gas prices, and the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Kerry would be seen as Carter 2.0 with would be Vice President Edwards possibly adding a little twist of Clintonian scandal. 2008 would be 1980 2.0. McCain and a Republican Congress probably worsen the effects of the Great Recession as economics wasn't McCain's strong suit and a GOP supermajority forces austerity on the Country. A McCain administration is also likely to be a thorn in the ass of our allies to, so President Hillary Clinton or President Barack Obama, which ever makes President McCain a one termer, is going to have a lot on their plate come January 2013. I also think what @Inferus said here is true:

Very likely this series of modern day presidencies shows a great deal of political shift and a country divided. The country is going to have severe issues dealing with terrorism, the economy, etc as the Executive's focus continually swings every four years

I think even if a Democrat elected in 2012 wins in 2016, much of this divide and the issues dealing with terrorism and the economy would remain true as even if the executive holds, the Congress is likely to swing Republican in 2014.

The bigger impact will be in the change in policies from President to President, not that we'd have multiple one term Presidencies in a row which is fairly common. From 1953 to 1989 only two Presidents - Ike and Reagan - were elected to two full terms. In fact, having every President from 1993 to 2017 be re-relected is what's unusual.

I don't think we'd see a huge change in policy until 2012 in TTL. Kerry would be blocked from making change at every turn by a Republican Congress and McCain with a Republican supermajoirty wouldn't be all that different from Bush. Also, I'd like to add that Ike and Reagan were the only two from '53-'89 that were elected to two full terms AND Finished them. Nixon was also elected to a second full term, he just didn't finish the second like Ike and Reagan did.
 
You'll have to break down each Administrations actions in different departments. You have three individuals (possible even 5 if the next two terms are single presidents) who will each have completely different policies and reaction from both Houses.

It would be best to break down each police of each President and how much the others will change these plans. Don't forget McCain was seen as a maverick who disagreed with a lot of Bush policies so may not be a complete U-turn on Kerry.

George Bush:
Defense and War on Terror
Foreign policies and Trade
Economy
Domestic

John Kerry:
Defense and War on Terror
Foreign policies and Trade
Economy
Domestic

John McCain:
Defense and War on Terror
Foreign policies and Trade
Economy
Domestic

John Edwards:
Defense and War on Terror
Foreign policies and Trade
Economy
Domestic

John Kasich:
Defense and War on Terror
Foreign policies and Trade
Economy
Domestic
 
A lack of continuity, especially with rotating ideological views, is not going to lead to a cohesive government policy. The fact the electorate is jumping back and forth shows a lack of faith in either party and potential desperation. Do we know exactly what is leading to these swings which would help us derive actions by each administration?
 
A lack of continuity, especially with rotating ideological views, is not going to lead to a cohesive government policy. The fact the electorate is jumping back and forth shows a lack of faith in either party and potential desperation. Do we know exactly what is leading to these swings which would help us derive actions by each administration?

Well Kerry almost won in OTL but I don’t think he would have inspired much confidence in the electorate or be charismatic enough to win re-election automatically.

I already said butterflies cause delayed recession so McCain gets that blame
 
I already said butterflies cause delayed recession so McCain gets that blame

What exact changes in policy would cause those butterflies? Democrats and Republicans generally agreed on economic issues back then (low taxes, free trade, deregulation, etc.). Remember that Greenspan stayed at the Fed for so long because Clinton reappointed him.
 
What exact changes in policy would cause those butterflies? Democrats and Republicans generally agreed on economic issues back then (low taxes, free trade, deregulation, etc.). Remember that Greenspan stayed at the Fed for so long because Clinton reappointed him.

It would have to be something involving the housing industry that leads to the bubble starting a couple of years later than it did
 
It would have to be something involving the housing industry that leads to the bubble starting a couple of years later than it did

If Kerry replaces Greenspan with a Chairman who raises interest rates in 2006, that might be able to mitigate it somewhat. Greenspan's extremely low rates were meant to be an incentive for people to borrow and spend more and grow the economy, ultimately this became excessive and it contributed to a housing bubble. But the problem here is that the 2007-2009 crisis was caused by decades of systemic problems and economic mistakes and a POD of 2004 isn't going to change that. I agree with @dw93 that Kerry's term would be awful and he'd lose in 2008.
 
Obama wins by a LOT in 2012 and probably be more radical than otl? Likely an interstate compact to undermine the risk of another reversal deciosn by the electoral college.
 
Obama wins by a LOT in 2012 and probably be more radical than otl? Likely an interstate compact to undermine the risk of another reversal deciosn by the electoral college.

I mean we might end up with Edwards in this TL as the Democratic nominee in 2012. I’m assuming that being VP would butterfly the affair he had in OTL and instead he just gets remarried after his wife dies?
 
I mean we might end up with Edwards in this TL as the Democratic nominee in 2012. I’m assuming that being VP would butterfly the affair he had in OTL and instead he just gets remarried after his wife dies?

But who's to say he just wouldn't go and have an affair with someone else?
 
But who's to say he just wouldn't go and have an affair with someone else?

It’s up to the butterflies. If he makes it out of the VP without having an affair and his wife still dies in 2010. At the very least he won’t be using campaign finances to cover up an affair. If he makes it to her death without having an affair, his public image isn’t tarnished and instead in 2012 he’s the former VP who lost his beloved wife and has some sympathy among the voting public.

Whether that’s enough to defeat Obama/Clinton/anyone else in 2012 is something else though. But if he runs a progressive campaign in 2012 I think he could defeat a McCain with a slow economy.
 
I think a huge diveregence here would occur at the beginning of McCain’s term. Part of what contained the damage from the Great Recession was the Obama stimulus, whose size and scope was made possible only by large Democratic majorities in Congress. Additionally, I doubt McCain would bail out the auto giants, which I believe he opposed in OTL (and which the Obama admin came close to rejecting also).

Without these measures I suspect unemployment would be considerably worse than in OTL, particularly in the electorally crucial midwestern states, and the GOP is likely to suffer massive losses in 2010 and 2012.
 
I think a huge diveregence here would occur at the beginning of McCain’s term. Part of what contained the damage from the Great Recession was the Obama stimulus, whose size and scope was made possible only by large Democratic majorities in Congress. Additionally, I doubt McCain would bail out the auto giants, which I believe he opposed in OTL (and which the Obama admin came close to rejecting also).

Without these measures I suspect unemployment would be considerably worse than in OTL, particularly in the electorally crucial midwestern states, and the GOP is likely to suffer massive losses in 2010 and 2012.

So basically McCain goes down in history as a second Herbert Hoover. As I've said before on this forum, it is better for his legacy that he never became President.
 
Oh man, if anybody could make the Trump Presidency look more refined, it's John Edwards.

Lets not sell the man short: He had a bastard child with a college aged staffer who he paid off with campiagn money, WHILE HIS WIFE WAS DYING OF CANCER.

Also, he was an ambulance chaser who built a mansion next door to a trailer park.

Edwards would have been god awful President.
 
The bigger impact will be in the change in policies from President to President, not that we'd have multiple one term Presidencies in a row which is fairly common. From 1953 to 1989 only two Presidents - Ike and Reagan - were elected to two full terms. In fact, having every President from 1993 to 2017 be re-relected is what's unusual.

To be fair, Nixon was elected to a second term, and both he and Kennedy left office under exceptional circumstances.
 
With Kerry in '04 and McCain in '08, the 2012 Democrat could be....Trump.....

Now THAT would be a fun timeline.

More realistic if the Great Recession happens on schedule (otherwise Kerry might hang on in 2008).

McCain doesn't do enough to fix the economy. We have 7-8% U3 in 2012 and J-Mac doesn't have the charisma to survive the weak recovery.

As a bonus, there are sites where you can create your own Trump tweets.
 
Top