2008: President Kerry vs. Senator McCain

[Reaganfan]

On November 2, 2004 Massachusetts Senator John Kerry is narrowly elected President over incumbant Republican President George Bush.

Kerry/Edwards: 272*
Bush/Cheney: 266

Kerry's first term is marked by disaster. In August 2005, Hurricane Katrina strikes the Gulf Coast of Louisiana. Disaster hits the city of New Orleans at the highest levels. Hundreds are killed, and the government's response to the disaster is considered weak at best. President Kerry's approval ratings fall into the mid-30's. As the 2006 election cycle begins, neither party seems to have an advantage. The Democrats are being led by a weak and unpopular President, and the Republicans are covered in corruption.

On August 16, 2006 thousands are killed in a massive terrorist attack. Seven commerical airliners are blown up over New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Newark, Miami, San Francisco and Washington, D.C.

The Kerry Administration is quickly critized for not taking proper precautions, but nevertheless, President Kerry's approval rating climbs to 50%.

On November 7, 2006 Republicans maintain both the House, and the Senate, making gains along the way.

In 2008, President Kerry and Vice President Edwards face no opposition for the Democratic Nomination and are easily re-nominated at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, CO in September 2008. Arizona Senator John McCain wins the Republican Nomination and selects Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty as his running mate.

Who wins the 2008 election?

[Middle-aged Europe]

On August 16, 2006 thousands are killed in a massive terrorist attack. Seven commerical airliners are blown up over New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Newark, Miami, San Francisco and Washington, D.C.

Uh, I'm not exactly sure how the election of Kerry could have effected the work of the British police in a negative way.

[Reaganfan]

On August 16, 2006 thousands are killed in a massive terrorist attack. Seven commerical airliners are blown up over New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Newark, Miami, San Francisco and Washington, D.C.

Uh, I'm not exactly sure how the election of Kerry could have effected the work of the British police in a negative way.

It wasn't just the Brits who broke the case. Plus, he would have killed the wiretaps as soon as he came into office.

[Middle-aged Europe]

On August 16, 2006 thousands are killed in a massive terrorist attack. Seven commerical airliners are blown up over New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Newark, Miami, San Francisco and Washington, D.C.

Uh, I'm not exactly sure how the election of Kerry could have effected the work of the British police in a negative way.

It wasn't just the Brits who broke the case. Plus, he would have killed the wiretaps as soon as he came into office.

Ah, I see, it's that "if the Republicans lose, the terrorists will win" thing...

[Wakie]

So ... your argument is that Kerry wouldn't have a more competent head of FEMA but would have a less competent head of the British police.

Riiiiiiiight.

Why stop there?  Why not have Saddam return to power, Hitler come back to life, and Eddie Murphy put out another music album?

[George W. Hobbes]

Well, it's perfectly possible that Kerry could have appointed an incompetent head of FEMA.  It's largely been considered a patronage job.

As for the terrorist attack, butterflies, y'know?  They do happen.  And it is feasible that the wiretapping program helped in preventing the attack.  Assuming that, and assuming that Kerry would kill the program (something I doubt, opposition was for political reasons) then that is fairly possible.

Don't dismiss things for sheer blind partisanship.

[Michael Z]

On August 16, 2006 thousands are killed in a massive terrorist attack. Seven commerical airliners are blown up over New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Newark, Miami, San Francisco and Washington, D.C.

Ok, first of all, that "plot" was a dud. Had anyone actually checked the science behind it, it would have been patently obvious to them that the plot would not have worked. It was a pipe dream by some idiot kids who wanted to "do a jihad", and then used by the government as a photo opportunity to potray itself as doing a good job in the fight against terror.

Secondly, this whole "If the Democrats win, the terrorists will win too"-thing is really getting tired. Kerry would not have "killed the wiretaps", he would have made sure he'd get consent from the courts beforehand and not acted in an illegal manner. In other words, he would have continued with the wiretaps but made sure he would have also acted in line with the constitution. Big big difference.

Not even mentioning that Kerry's stance on wiretaps wouldn't have stopped the plot being foiled anyhow, as the main information about it came from Pakistan.

Besides, as Old Europe pointed out, the plot was uncovered by the British. President Kerry would not have made a jot of a difference whatsoever, plus I think you overestimate just how much power the President has in these affairs.

[Wakie]

Well, it's perfectly possible that Kerry could have appointed an incompetent head of FEMA.  It's largely been considered a patronage job.

As for the terrorist attack, butterflies, y'know?  They do happen.  And it is feasible that the wiretapping program helped in preventing the attack.  Assuming that, and assuming that Kerry would kill the program (something I doubt, opposition was for political reasons) then that is fairly possible.

Don't dismiss things for sheer blind partisanship.

In What-If scenarios anything is really fair game.  But I believe it is totally unfair to assume the Kerry admin would have fumbled the same way the Bush admin did AND would not succeed the same way.  Especially when the "success" from the Bush admin was largely due to the efforts of the British.

[Alcon]

Why stop there?  Why not have Saddam return to power, Hitler come back to life, and Eddie Murphy put out another music album?

Reincarnated Hitler wants to party all the time, party all the time, party all the time.

[George W. Hobbes]

On August 16, 2006 thousands are killed in a massive terrorist attack. Seven commerical airliners are blown up over New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Newark, Miami, San Francisco and Washington, D.C.

Ok, first of all, that "plot" was a dud. Had anyone actually checked the science behind it, it would have been patently obvious to them that the plot would not have worked. It was a pipe dream by some idiot kids who wanted to "do a jihad", and then used by the government as a photo opportunity to potray itself as doing a good job in the fight against terror.

Secondly, this whole "If the Democrats win, the terrorists will win too"-thing is really getting tired. Kerry would not have "killed the wiretaps", he would have made sure he'd get consent from the courts beforehand and not acted in an illegal manner. In other words, he would have continued with the wiretaps but made sure he would have also acted in line with the constitution. Big big difference.

Not even mentioning that Kerry's stance on wiretaps wouldn't have stopped the plot being foiled anyhow, as the main information about it came from Pakistan.

Besides, as Old Europe pointed out, the plot was uncovered by the British. President Kerry would not have made a jot of a difference whatsoever, plus I think you overestimate just how much power the President has in these affairs.

The wiretapping program doesn't violate the Constitution, although I have heard that it might offend some penumbras.

[Colin]

Eddie Murphy put out another music album?

Hey the only reason that album completely sucked ass was that Rick James was high on several drugs when he wrote it.

But yeah, come on Naso, if the Democrats get elected the terrorists do not win. I doubt there would be a significant enough change in the security apparatus of the United States to make it more vulnerable or weak under a Democratic administration.

[Smash255]

Well, it's perfectly possible that Kerry could have appointed an incompetent head of FEMA.  It's largely been considered a patronage job.

As for the terrorist attack, butterflies, y'know?  They do happen.  And it is feasible that the wiretapping program helped in preventing the attack.  Assuming that, and assuming that Kerry would kill the program (something I doubt, opposition was for political reasons) then that is fairly possible.

Don't dismiss things for sheer blind partisanship.

Naso's post stating that their would have been the commerical airlines being blown up if Kerry was elected was blind partisanship.  Anyway as was pointed out the plan was pretty much a dud.  Also kerry wasn't opposed to wiretapping, he was opposed to wiretapping WITHOUT a warrant.  The GOP likes to play games and suggest that Kerry & the Dems are against wiretapping when that was not the case.  What we are against is wiretapping WITHOUT a warrant, something which would have been easy to come by in a cse like this.  therefore to suggest that the attacks would have happened (is well ignoring that it was a dud)  and ignoring or just flat out lying the Democrats position on wiretapping.  So the original post and your response is what was blind partisanship.

[Reignman]

This scenario wouldn't happen, but if it did, it'd just be another 50/50 election.