John Kerry in '04 pulls major change, responds quicker to Swift Boat criticism?

Now, the Kerry campaign had a plan. They were going to wait to a certain day in Fall '04 before launching the main campaign in order to tap into federal funding. So, generally a pretty good plan.

But let's say John decides to respond to the criticism quicker.

And, he avoids the mistake of over-responding and thereby legitimizing the criticism. Of course the Bush administration will themselves respond to a major change. As will the right-wing ideologues. In fact, John might go through eight years of his presidency as a steady middle-of-the-roader getting all kinds of things done, and still receiving all kinds of criticism from the right. This assumes of course that he's seen as responding competently to the '08 banking crisis and wins re-election.

And another interesting wrinkle is that a habit of abruptly changing plans likely doesn't serve someone well as Secretary of State, where a steady eddie approach probably gets more done in the long-term.
 
If he responds quicker, criticizes Bush's national guard record, and Bush's debate performances in the second and third debate are equivalent to his performance in the first, Kerry might pull it off, although you may see the reverse of 2000 (Bush wins popular vote, but loses the election in the electoral college).

Kerry's term is going to be a tough one. The GOP is going to be even more bitter in defeat than the Democrats were after 2000, and Kerry isn't going to have a rally around the flag effect to rally the country behind him like Bush did with 9/11. Kerry probably sees an earlier surge in Iraq with a timetable for a full withdrawal by 2008 or 2009. Kerry handles Afghanistan more or less the same way Obama did in his first term. I can also see him getting Bin Laden sometime around 2007 or 08. As for Putin annexing Georgia, Kerry probably does nothing like Bush did OTL. The economy more or less goes OTL, while I don't blame him entirely, Bush did accelerate the collapse with the Iraq war, the tax cuts, and an unfunded prescription drug plan to Medicare, and the fact that the SEC under Bush didn't enforce any regulations (If Gore won in 2000, the collapse still would've happened, but it would've been less severe and might've happened in say 2009 0r 2010 instead of 08). Plus, Edwards was a ticking time bomb, sure he won't meet Riley Hunter, but come on, it's John Edwards. Kerry does however, handle Katrina better than Bush did. The overall response thanks to state and local officials is still bad, but the Federal Government does better.

For 2008, I agree with Pericles' timeline in a sense that Kerry loses in 2008. With the economy, instability abroad, and a possible Edwards scandal, Kerry's Presidency is seen as a repeat of the Carter years with a possible Clintonesque scandal. A Republican wins in 2008, the economy goes worse due to a weaker response from a Republican President, another war possibly happens in Libya, Syria, or Iran, and a Democrat (Probably Madam Pantsuits) wins in 2012.
 
Last edited:
One of the problems is that the criticism was legitimate. Those guys really did serve with Kerry and spoke with real knowledge of his character.

Sorry.

The Swiftboating smear claims have been discredited. Those guys did not serve with Kerry, and were not in a position to comment. They lied and distorted recorded fact. And those that did serve with him said Kerry was perfectly honorable and never mentioned anything about "Swiftboating", and debunked the attacks.
 
I'm almost surprised that the "swiftboating" worked in OTL. Four years later "Jeremiah Wrighting" had basically the opposite of the intended effect.
 
That's because Obama was less known. To a lot of veteran-types, some of Kerry's actions were considered unfitting enough that they voted for Bush. The electorate was only starting to get polarized at this time as well- there were a lot more moderates in 2004 than today.

Also 2008 was flat-out a rejection of Bush. All Obama had to do to win was walk upright, keep from waking up next to a live boy or a dead girl, and not be Bush.
 
I'm almost surprised that the "swiftboating" worked in OTL. Four years later "Jeremiah Wrighting" had basically the opposite of the intended effect.
Obama had the example of 2004 to work with. He is also a far better natural politician than Kerry is. And lest we forget, Kerry came within a little over 2% in Ohio from winning, so it's not like his campaign was as crippled as often remembered.

And of course, almost any Democrat could have won in 2008; on the other hand, 2004, like 2012, saw the fundamentals sufficiently strong that the incumbent could win. People tend to focus on the "gotcha" moments and things like the swiftboating, rather than the overall fundamentals that mostly determine elections.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
One of the problems is that the criticism was legitimate. Those guys really did serve with Kerry and spoke with real knowledge of his character.

Sorry.

This has been thoroughly debunked. In fact the Billionaire behind the "grass roots" group was shown to be the real slimeball after he publicly stated he would pay a million dollars to anyone who could disprove the "Swift Boat" scenario and a group of men who actually served with Kerry did so in a 19 point response. The big money guy of course reneged.

Sorry.
 
I think getting Bin Laden would be about the same timeline whether Bush, Kerry, or ' 08 Republican. In a sense, Bin Laden was the first James Bond-type, rich guy villain, with his religious overlay, and there's a good chance it just may take a while.

The U.S. men and women working in the field are going to be just as dedicated no matter who is president.
 
Obama had the example of 2004 to work with. He is also a far better natural politician than Kerry is. And lest we forget, Kerry came within a little over 2% in Ohio from winning, so it's not like his campaign was as crippled as often remembered.

And of course, almost any Democrat could have won in 2008; on the other hand, 2004, like 2012, saw the fundamentals sufficiently strong that the incumbent could win. People tend to focus on the "gotcha" moments and things like the swiftboating, rather than the overall fundamentals that mostly determine elections.
I agree. Baseline often trumps interesting plot turns.

Given the '04, '08, and '12 presidential results, I read it as the U.S. electorate tilting slightly toward Democratic side. So, there's a puzzle and the puzzle is this: Why does the U.S. Congress now have Republican majorities? And don't think weak candidates on one side or another is enough to explain it.
 
Kerry WOULD get to appoint a liberal Chief Justice, which would butterfly Citizens United. So at least there's that.
 

bguy

Donor
Given the '04, '08, and '12 presidential results, I read it as the U.S. electorate tilting slightly toward Democratic side. So, there's a puzzle and the puzzle is this: Why does the U.S. Congress now have Republican majorities? And don't think weak candidates on one side or another is enough to explain it.

Democrat voters tend to be concentrated in urban areas while Republican voters are more spread out. Thus the Democrats win the cities by huge margins but the Republicans get a majority by more narrowly winning everywhere else.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/upshot/why-democrats-cant-win.html?_r=0

Just imagine a state with 6 equal sized Congressional districts. 2 of them are primarily urban and heavily favor the Democrats, while the other 4 are suburban/rural and narrowly favor the Republicans.

If the Democrats win the 2 urban districts with 75% of the vote, and the Republicans win the 4 suburban/rural districts with only 55% of the vote, then the Republicans win 4 congressional seats to the Democrats 2, even though the Democrats overall received 55% of the statewide vote.
 
Democrat voters tend to be concentrated in urban areas while Republican voters are more spread out. Thus the Democrats win the cities by huge margins but the Republicans get a majority by more narrowly winning everywhere else.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/upshot/why-democrats-cant-win.html?_r=0

Just imagine a state with 6 equal sized Congressional districts. 2 of them are primarily urban and heavily favor the Democrats, while the other 4 are suburban/rural and narrowly favor the Republicans.

If the Democrats win the 2 urban districts with 75% of the vote, and the Republicans win the 4 suburban/rural districts with only 55% of the vote, then the Republicans win 4 congressional seats to the Democrats 2, even though the Democrats overall received 55% of the statewide vote.

Exactly. Perfectly said.
 
Thanks for a reference to a good article from Sept. 6, 2014.

Blown away by how few competitive districts in Congress.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/upshot/why-democrats-cant-win.html?_r=1

' . . Over all, the number of districts that voted within four points of the national margin in presidential elections, like Florida and Ohio, dropped to 29 in 2012, from 71 in 1992. . '
So, of the 435 districts and seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, only about 10% of them are competitive in any real sense ? ? Apparently, so. And currently, actually slightly less than 10%.
 
Last edited:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/upshot/why-democrats-cant-win.html?_r=1

' . . The Obama campaign was the first to fully embrace a diverse metropolitan coalition. He unabashedly campaigned on social issues, like gay rights and funding for contraception, that past Democratic candidates would have tiptoed around for fear of alienating more conservative, rural voters. . '
This is not my reading of President Obama, who was actually somewhat late to lesbian and gay rights. And who has tried to very much emphasize middle-class economic issues.
 
That's because Obama was less known. To a lot of veteran-types, some of Kerry's actions were considered unfitting enough that they voted for Bush. The electorate was only starting to get polarized at this time as well- there were a lot more moderates in 2004 than today.

Also 2008 was flat-out a rejection of Bush. All Obama had to do to win was walk upright, keep from waking up next to a live boy or a dead girl, and not be Bush.

Not entirely true; McCain was a dope of a candidate, and yet until the September 2008 economic crash the polls were pretty equal. The crash and McCain's perceived lack of response to it, and his awful debate performances, were what sealed his fate.

Yes Kerry came across as stiffer and unfriendlier than Obama, but even in 2004 there was a huge groundswell of anti-Bush sentiment that almost carried the day.
 
Not entirely true; McCain was a dope of a candidate, and yet until the September 2008 economic crash the polls were pretty equal. The crash and McCain's perceived lack of response to it, and his awful debate performances, were what sealed his fate.
Actually, aside from a short blip around the Republican Convention, Obama led in essentially every poll in 2008.

The economic collapse just turned what was already a likely victory into a rout.
 
Top