WI: Kerry won in 2004

One of Kerry's critiques of Bush was that he didn't follow Shinseki's advice and send enough troops into Iraq in the first place. If you look at his advisors, there were the same sentiments. Granted, Kerry called only for a withdrawal, but I could imagine him proposing a plan similar to what Obama implemented in Afghanistan - a short-term increase paired with a timetable for withdrawal.
 
I think New Orleans would have turned out better. Kerry would not have loaded up FEMA with cronies, and would have probably turned it towards a more effective organization. I also suspect that Kerry wouldn't have been playing air guitar while hundreds of people drowned.

The byword of the Bush administration was a lethal disinterest in anything that did not form part of their Agenda. That's why they were always caught flatfooted by events. And it's why their response to events was to always twist things to serve their agenda.

Kerry's likely to approach Katrina more diligently and expeditiously. Less damage, faster response, many more lives saved, and perhaps a much better follow up response.

Overall, in foreign policy, I think Kerry's approach would mirror Bush's. Like it or not, there's a violent consensus on foreign policy between Republicans and Democrats, and I don't think he'd undo much of Bush's work.

In economic policy, Kerry's a policy wonk, so I'd imagine that he'd probably do better, perhaps avoid the worst of the Bush crash. But he's fighting a Republican regime in congress, so no telling.

Overall, I'd see him as Bush-lite, something in the mold of his old man. A more competent government certainly, not radically different, and perpetuating many or most Bush policies in a less corrupt, saner and less radical way.
 
I can't see Kerry starting a troop surge in Iraq. He'd probably do his 'three state solution'.

Nah, the whole "three-state solution" thing wound up being really unpopular (predictably) from Iraqis. And the U.S. didn't exactly have any authority to forcibly break the country up. The idea would have gone exactly the same way as it did in real life - nowhere.
 
I think New Orleans would have turned out better. Kerry would not have loaded up FEMA with cronies, and would have probably turned it towards a more effective organization. I also suspect that Kerry wouldn't have been playing air guitar while hundreds of people drowned.

The byword of the Bush administration was a lethal disinterest in anything that did not form part of their Agenda. That's why they were always caught flatfooted by events. And it's why their response to events was to always twist things to serve their agenda.

Kerry's likely to approach Katrina more diligently and expeditiously. Less damage, faster response, many more lives saved, and perhaps a much better follow up response.

Overall, in foreign policy, I think Kerry's approach would mirror Bush's. Like it or not, there's a violent consensus on foreign policy between Republicans and Democrats, and I don't think he'd undo much of Bush's work.

In economic policy, Kerry's a policy wonk, so I'd imagine that he'd probably do better, perhaps avoid the worst of the Bush crash. But he's fighting a Republican regime in congress, so no telling.

Overall, I'd see him as Bush-lite, something in the mold of his old man. A more competent government certainly, not radically different, and perpetuating many or most Bush policies in a less corrupt, saner and less radical way.

This is a decent appraisal. Even OTL, 2005-2009 was mostly directed towards cleaning up and managing problems created in the first Bush term. As it was, nothing major passed Congress, and Bush's own foreign policy wound up shifting in a more traditional direction with the sidelining of Cheney and Rumsfeld.

As Kerry would likely have had a Republican Congress, his ability to move domestic legislation would have been extremely limited, and his foreign policy options would have been constrained by the fact that we were already IN two wars, and getting out is always harder than getting in.
 
I definitely believe that Kerry could have been a one-term President, especially if his plans for Iraq devolve into a full fledged civil war, which had a pretty decent probability happening in '05/'06 prior to the surge. I do think his relationship with Congress would be a tad bit better, and he might be able to get a proposal on immigration reform through Congress that Teddy championed IOTL. Does anyone honestly think that as long as Kerry has a moderately successful two years that the Democrats wouldn't retake congress during the '06 midterms? I kinda feel like if anything, Kerry could make the case that with all the scandals of the 109th Congress and his failure to get a signature piece of legislation through Congress being largely due to the Republican's intransigence, that maybe its time to let the Democrats in charge and see how much better they could do...would be the best persuasive argument.

Since, I doubt that Kerry would depart from the Clinton-Democratic economic consensus, and he would probably bring back all the old heads(Rubin was his economic adviser during the campaign, I think).I do think due ultimately to the pressure to undue all the mess that the Bush administration created and trying to improve America's standing in the world; Kerry might be just as blindsided by the economic crises of '08 as Bush was IOTL. The response to stem the crisis might be a little faster in Democrats control the presidency and congress, but I think as long as the Republican's can nominate someone who could possibly engender that populist feeling with Americans in a way that Kerry never could...He could be defeated.
 
I think it not really very realistic, that the Dems win Congress in 06. Presidental party winning the midterm election is seldom enough, but actually winning a landslide (and that they would need to retake the senate)? No chance.
 
John Edwards' scandals won't be an issue because Vice President John Edwards would never have even *met* Rielle Hunter. So he's still in good standing and, regardless of whether or not Kerry wins or loses in 2008, he's a clear frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2012.

Kerry will likely do an earlier 'surge' than Bush did, owing to his own campaign rhetoric. Which will probably help him out with securing his re-election campaign, even though it'll probably hurt him a bit with liberals, who'll probably see Kerry as most of them see Obama now. Otherwise, foreign policy will probably take the same route that it has under Obama, stressing reconciliation and mending American relations with Europe and Russia. Kerry will probably pay lip service to cracking down on foreign trade manipulators much in the same fashion that Obama has done, and I still see most of Bush's free trade agreements going through. A Kerry administration will also probably reorient the U.S. toward finding bin Laden and he might end up dead much earlier than IOTL.

On domestic policy, Kerry is going to have to deal with Republican control of both chambers of Congress, which means that he'll have a situation similar to what Obama has now. I can see him working a bit better with them though, largely owing to that Congress being significantly less right-wing than OTL's 112th Congress. Remember that the economy wasn't *great* in 2004, so I can see a President Kerry working with Congress to pass a small stimulus package that would help spur it on while also working toward reducing the deficit. Of course, most likely nothing will get done about the banking crisis, which will blowup in the year before Kerry seeks re-election. I assume the Democrats will make gains in the 2006 midterms (at least in the House) but still not take full control of the Congress at any point in Kerry's presidency.

By 2008, the Democrats will start to fall in popularity as the economic crisis hits hard and Kerry becomes increasingly unpopular. Republicans nominate McCain (with VP candidate Tim Pawlenty) who beats Kerry in a closer election that OTL, but still not a very close. McCain takes office in 2009 with a Republican majority in both chambers and the intent to stimulate the economy and deal with the banking crisis with tax cuts and deregulatory measures, though he does support the reinstitution of the Glass-Steagall 'Wall of Separation' in banking.

By 2010, 11-12% unemployment allows the Democrats to win control of both houses of Congress. John Edwards leads the pack of potential Democratic Presidential nominees, while also facing down opposition from Senator Hillary Clinton. In the end, progressive activists manage to nominate Edwards for the Presidency. McCain announces that he will not seek another term, allowing Mitt Romney to claim the nomination. In a blowout for the Democrats, John Edwards and Vice Presidential nominee Barack Obama take the White House, increasing their majorities in both chambers of Congress.
 
Kerry wins the WH narrowly in 2004. OTL scandals still emerge, costing the GOP control of Congress in 2006. However, gubernatorial contests that year go better for the GOP, butterflying into place a second term as governor for Robert Ehrlich of Maryland. Kerry's signature legislative achievement in 2007 is the Healthy Americans Act. Several trade agreements initiated under his predecessor are ratified. However, the 2008 global recession already has its foundations in place, and happens anyway. This coupled with a scandal surrounding an affair between VP John Edwards and a staffer weakens President Kerry's reelection bid, allowing John McCain and Robert Ehrlich to win back the presidency for the GOP.
 
I'm planning on writing a timeline for this POD at some point. Interesting short term effects, even more interesting long term implications.
 
I mean, it seems like a consensus that the dominant features of American politics are the economic collapse and intense partisan bickering both leading to a severe loss of faith in government.

Is there any plausible means a President Kerry avoids this pattern, regardless of the 2008 election's outcome? It seems easy enough to say that economics are chaotic enough so that the real downturn happens in December 2008 instead of September (thus modifying that election considerably), but is it plausible to really change the underlying dynamics?

Is there anyway that Kerry (or a 2008 Republican) becomes some kind of great uniter?
 
Top