WI: John Kerry joined the Clergy.

In an interview discussing his faith, Senator John Kerry stated that during his early years...

I seriously thought of being a priest. I was very religious while at school in Switzerland. I was an altar boy and prayed all the time. I was very centered around the Mass and the church.

However, as we all know, he did not become a priest. Instead he went on to politics. However, what if John Kerry had decided to become a priest? Who would the Democrats choose to run against Bush in 2004? Would this affect Congress and it's decisions in any way? Where would Kerry be today?
 
Maybe John Edwards as the 04 Nominee?

Results from the 04 Iowa caucuses: Democratic candidates John Kerry 38% John Edwards 32%. Former front-runner Howard Dean slipped to 18%, and Richard Gephardt got 11%. Assuming the same candidates run without Kerry in the pack than it looks like Edwards would be the frontrunner after Iowa. Of course the next question is who wins over the voters who backed Kerry?
 
Or maybe if Dean comes closer to winning in Iowa without Kerry (or wins) then he doesn't 'Dean Scream' and that buoys his campaign up and he wins the Democratic Nomination. Though he probably loses to Bush, maybe more than Kerry did.
 
Dean's scream happened as he was conceding defeat. A tape of Dean insulting the Iowa caucus had aired on local TV in the days before the voting helped sink him. I don't see how removing Kerry from the process changes this.
SO I think Edwards wins the nomination and does better than Kerry. Kerry's heroic Vietnam service became a disctration. Edwards comes out swinging on the issues. I don't think he wins but it is an even narrower one percent loss. Enough Democrat votes to make the differences in the Senate races in South Dakota and Kentucky. Also home state pride brings in more votes in both the Carolinas. While Bush wins both states, the Democrats win both Senate seats. Today there are 63 Democrats in the Senate.
 
Doesn't Kerry lose in 2004 by a very small margin in a few Ohio counties and thus throw the election to Bush??? IRRC it was recount close. So couldn't a different less bland Candidate swing things the other way?
 
GSM: The POD would be in the 1960s, so massive amounts of butterflies kill your scenario.

You are correct but It seemed like we were taking this the TL-191 route. Same characters but the environment is a bit different. Sicne you are correct then aren't the candidacies of Edwards and Dean mothraed as well, Maybe Edwards is better at Football and doesn't quit the Gamecocks squad and instead plays corner (IIRC his OTL position) and Dean remains an MD, I bet Gerphardt was already in politics by then (was ancient :)); anyway, it appears as though I am factually correct, which is what I wanted to know :D.
 
If Kerry isn't the nominee, it would not be Edwards. Edwards was despised even amongst fellow Senators, who regarded him as a shallow phony. An alternative would be Hillary, who was very close to entering the race IOTL. She would not be the first Dynasticrat to run 3 years into their Senate term, nor the first whose fierce presidential ambition discomfited the Democratic establishment. ;) But everyone likes a winner, and Hillary would run at least as well as Kerry electorally, and given her rapport with WWC voters would carry Ohio.
 
I'm pretty sure it would be Dean. He probably wouldn't make that bonehead mistake as the definitive front runner without Kerry. Then again, such a gap would probably see H. Clinton wanting to fill it... Yeah I'm going to go with Clinton nomination in '04 if Kerry became a man of the cloth.
 
Hillary couldn't run in 2004. She was seen as an eager presidential candidate even when she was first lady. She had to wait a decent interval. Since Edwards was Kerry's competition after Dean self destructed. which he would have done if Kerry was there or not, I see him as the likely nominee.
 
I agree that if Hillary had run against Bush she would have won. She carries Ohio and also Nevada and New Mexico due to being way more popular with Hispanics than Kerry.

How would Hillary handle Iraq I wonder? How about Katrina?

The crash of 2008 probably still happens, which means she's screwed. The GOP probably wouldn't nominate McCain though.

Losing in 2004 was a blessing in disguise for the Democrats really.
 
Here's an idea. John Kerry becomes a Priest. Al Gore (who majored in theology IOTL, I think) becomes a theologian as well, possibly breaking away from the Southern Baptist Convention to join the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. Meanwhile, George W. Bush, after his conversion experience, possibly inspired by either Billy Graham or Arthur Blessitt (who "converted" him IOTL) becomes an evangelist.
How would our society look? Who would take their places? Would these religious leaders influence society in other ways? Would they conflict with each other?
 
GSM: The POD would be in the 1960s, so massive amounts of butterflies kill your scenario.

This is true, although I'm not sure how far abroad the butterflies spread and how quickly. At the latest, Kerry's first senate run in 1972 would draw a different face and a new character may gain Kerry's OTL spot.

Massachusetts Politics is completely up in the air in 1972, national politics probably shift shortly thereafter.

You are correct but It seemed like we were taking this the TL-191 route. Same characters but the environment is a bit different. Sicne you are correct then aren't the candidacies of Edwards and Dean mothraed as well, Maybe Edwards is better at Football and doesn't quit the Gamecocks squad and instead plays corner (IIRC his OTL position) and Dean remains an MD, I bet Gerphardt was already in politics by then (was ancient :)); anyway, it appears as though I am factually correct, which is what I wanted to know :D.

The TL-191 route is very hard to justify on anything other than narrative convenience. While an easy shortcut that often emerges in TLs, I don't think its correct--I really do think that the outcome would lead to interesting debates and cultural questions getting asked along similar terms with different characters emerging.

A realistic answer is that by 1980, butterflies have mostly changed America's political landscape. Ronald Reagan chooses a different VP--a man who never held political office in OTL but was inspired by a different swing of events that helped him make a fortune in the Ketchup industry. Bill Clinton remains Arkansas' Governor as other people make their shot against this VP's second term. The Bush Family is discredited to scandals related to Neil Bush's financial mismangement of a Savings and Loan, and to George W's failures in the Oil Industry, their legacy comes to an end.

In 2004, A Right-wing republician incumbent faces a moderate democratic challenger. This incumbent has a mixed economy but strong credentials on national security due to a major terrorist attack that has rallied the nation. The democrats don't have a lot of chances to win, but they need a good fighter to keep the Republicians from winning too many seats, so a backbencher takes his shot, gets the nod, and keeps the GOP from pushing things too far.

Both of these Characters may as well be fictional--heck, it's easier just to write for the election:

Dem: Atkins/Schmidt
Rep: O'Rourke/Ignacio

And then try to draw platforms on the fly than to even bother trying to assign names in the face of the butterflies. TL-191ism is a subtle form of ASB justified laziness that would never happen.
 
Politically, there probably wouldn't be any serious butterflies until at least the early '70s, when Kerry was elected MA District Attorney (his earlier campaign went to the Republican anyway.) Even ignoring that, we're looking at serious federal changes as early as 1984, when Kerry won Paul Tsongas' Senate seat. The seat likely goes to his closest opponent, Rep. Jim Shannon (who OTL became MA Attorney General for a term, lost a primary, left politics, and is now CEO of the National Fire Prevention Association.)

Not knowing much about Jim Shannon, I can't say if he'd be primaried like he was OTL, or lose to a serious Republican candidate like Mitt Romney, as Kerry came moderately close to. He probably wouldn't have been a serious contender for national office, though, leaving the space Kerry filled in the 2004 election cycle (decorated veteran with a long history of federal service) open for another candidate to fill.

The other major butterflies coming from this relate to Kerry's accomplishments as a Senator. What would Jim Shannon (and possibly his successors) bring to the table, and how would it be different from what Kerry did?
 
Top