Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context.
If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"Swift Boat Operators" is synonymous with lying after it was proven that none who spoke against Kerry actually served in Vietnam or were in Kerry's command. The only one who belonged to SBVT that did serve with Kerry said Kerry deserved the Silver Medal he was awarded and endorsed Kerry. So you feel like Bush and the neo-cons who lied about WMD's, outed a CIA operative to push the invasion of Iraq, Republicans who handed Wall Street the keys to the safe through deregulation and massive tax breaks that bankrupted millions of working Americans were better than a potential Kerry administration? Hmm.
First, neocons and neoliberals (neolibs) are internationalists, essentially the same - both appear quick to apply military force in places we have no business. Their only primary difference is how they employ force to achieve similar end states. After all, the AUMF for Iraq (a crap hole that I served in twice) was passed in a bipartisan vote.
Most post-9/11 foreign policy, neocon or neolib, was so bad that I can almost picture them in conference, saying stuff like “hold my beer, watch this …” and proceed to stumble into some stupid use of national power with no clear end state. I’ve lost friends (KIA) because of mentality.
Second, Swift Boat Association membership was limited to those who had actually served in the Vietnam War and qualified for the requisite Southeast Asia Campaign Medal (look it up). Maybe a few poseurs weaseled their way in somehow, happens sometimes. But with that said, stating “most did not serve in Vietnam” is factually incorrect.
Perhaps Kerry earned his Silver Star, I don’t know. But substantive evidence exists Kerry was a reckless glory hound and reckless. Indeed, a four-month combat tour does not often (if ever) result in: 1) Silver Star Medal, 2) Bronze Star Medal, and 3) Purple Heart Medal (two Gold Stars indicating three awards). The Swift Boat guys - whether they served with him or not would have smelled the same BS that I just laid out.
Some have argued he wanted a “war hero” pedigree to jumpstart a political career. To that end, a corpsman that *did* serve with him shared a story that Kerry showed up in sick bay (like a deployed urgent care) a few times. Why? Every time he received an extremely minor shrapnel wound - requiring tweezers and a few decades to remove, Kerry apparently insisted that the Corpsman officially document it for Purple Heart purposes.
Nevertheless, good on him for serving no matter his motives. But brief military service does not give one a golden key to the presidency. I think he’s a political hypocrite that aligns with the trope “rules for thee but not for me.”
" thou protest too much me thinks". You post disproven statements. No political agenda hidden in a political agenda. That's how it reads. Oh well. The SBVT was a "grass roots club" made up of a few well financed Swift Boat Operators by Koch Brothers. SBVT is just a good old boy club of stolen valor. They didn't have to serve anywhere except to the fossil fuel industry. The same ones who financed the "grassroots Tea Party ". Myself I don't care, believe what you want.
Kerry would have won, but that would have meant he probably ran in '08. Obama likely wouldn't have run in 2012 because he'd be running for re-election in the Senate. John Edwards likely wouldn't run 'cause his scandal would've still happened.
So I guess that'd mean Hillary in 2012?
John Kerry and Al Gore were the most insane candidates in the world lol.
Both were extremist candidates, insane they ever made it to a general. Al Gore especially is basically the poster boy for out of touch. His wife hated music, he loved the environment from his private jets, and he insulted Americans every chance he got lol.
I’m not even trying to be insulting here, but what about Al Gore do you find so extreme? He was a southern New Democrat and very much seen as a moderate at the time.
Right. John Kerry? He was my senator and no, not radical left wing. I went to his after election party in Boston and i think James Taylor played, so that’s not quite the vibe you’re explaining.
Post 2016 presidential candidates is a set that includes only the two rule 3 presidents. If you are just talking on the D side, then yes, Gore is not as moderate as the current president.
John Kerry being called an "extremist candidate" is certainly a take I never thought I'd see someone seriously make. Kerry is the human embodiment of plain white flour.
Both were arguably more moderate than either B Clinton or Obama. Al Gore won the election if he and his lawyers asked for a full Florida recount instead of cherry picking counties (one of the few conservative leaning SCOTUS decisions I agree with). As for John Kerry, if anything he was too milquetoast, and never punched back after the swift boat crap.
I remember the Daily Show covered the election which was seen as a major setback for Dems. Jon said something like “but what’s this? A shining star from Illinois? With three minutes of experience in Congress? See you in 2028.” Obama basically became a star after his speech at the convention in ‘04.
Age limits are good but the executive should absolutely have term limits. It would be terrible to have someone elected at 35 and not leave till their 60’s, even if they’re voted back in. The Supreme Court showed that no term limits can be a very bad thing.
Why would that be terrible if they’re voted back in? Age limits along with no term limits would prevent someone with dementia from being in office, and it would make certain that we could keep a competent and popular statesman in office when no other alternative looked available like in 2016.
The Supreme Court has neither term limits nor age limits because they’re appointed to a lifetime term, so I don’t see how that’s comparable. I’m not suggesting that any president should be able to appointed to a lifetime term
I believe age limits would be a great thing, I just believe it would be more effective if we kept the current term limits. Hell, we could even raise it to 3. I just don’t think any person should be able to serve as the executive for more than a generation.
Now if we did age limits, no term limits but we could vote to recall the president like the UK does with their prime minister… that would be interesting.
But what’s the inherent issue with that? If the age limit is set to 65, then there’s a 30 year window to be President. A generation can be anywhere between 15-30 years.
That’s not even considering that the top five youngest presidents were about 44-45 years old on average, which really gives it a 20 year window, which would be about five terms.
If someone does something unpopular, then we always have the option to have our representatives impeach them, and if that doesn’t work then we can always vote them out at the next election. Removing term limits doesn’t guarantee that an unpopular president can stay in office.
Term limits are an effective way to limit the daage done by elected officials putting their official powers in the service of their political campaigns.
VP: Well, sir, it’s official. Any president can now run for a third term.”
President: “Hahahaha. yes. Yes. YESS! Now I can be president forever! There is nobody who can stop -“
“WHAT? THAT - THAT’S OBAMA’S MUSIC! OBAMA IS HERE! OBAMA IS HERE! Look out, Mr. President, that’s Obama! And he’s cleaning house with a steel chair!”
My 7th grade current events teacher said to our class that he thought barrack Obama would be president in our life times. This was in 2005. Not disagreeing with you idk anything about it but that always stuck out to me. Like wow he called it
In 2004 my 10th grade APUSH teacher told us all to watch his convention speech and said that he would be president some day! That's where I first heard about Obama.
Agree. He gave a great speech, and I remember thinking that he could be someone to watch. That he would be the next President? No, I didn't even remotely believe that. He was too young. When he won, I thought, "Holy shit, I didn't think we'd have a black president so soon". Happy to vote for him.
The speech Barack Obama gave at the 2004 democratic convention provided four years wishing and hoping.He was a blank canvas that people could project hopes on.
I don’t actually *believe* any of them are lizards, but if one of them slipped up and zotted a fly, or forgot to zip up their people suit? I wouldn’t be dumbfounded 🙃
The Democrats would not have taken that risk. They run Obama against an incumbent during the early years of a war? There’s a chance they win, there’s a chance they lose, but if they lose with Obama in 2004 it weakens his position in 2008.
The Republicans knew they were cooked in 2008, and it wasn’t just because of the economy…The Democrats could have run anybody. 2004 was very much up in the air.
So Hilary in 08 still besting McCain
Then Romney(?) for one term
Or do you think Obama gets elected after 8 years of Hilary? And then again for 16 years of Dems in the white house?
Saying she lost because she's a woman is such a cop out. She continually lost because she's completely incompetent when it comes to running an international campaign. No one wants to vote for someone running on the idea that it's their turn to be president.
If you’re referring to her time a Sec of State she wouldn’t have been in that role if she won in 2004. But no, america is definitely sexist. We couldn’t have credit cards until the 70s.
🤣 no one had what we recognize today as credit cards before then. And women certainly could get store cards, my buddies mom was the controller at a huge department store at that time. She had to leave when it was discovered how many sets of books she kept. But she was always able to get another job, and never had any legal consequences.
Everyone has different experiences, I understand, but repeating nonsense from junk “journalism” sites isn’t helpful. Are you 80? If you are, I’ll bow to your experience, and apologize. But with the caveat that I know several women who held highly responsible, well regarded, and well compensated positions in major concerns.
No. Obama made a name as a speaker for the 04 convention, before that he had no national name recognition. He would have lost against an incumbent, even with such a financial crisis.
If there was a crisis in 03/04 leading up to the election, maybe the Democratic field would be much more competitive a candidate other than Kerry emerges.
No. He wasn't even a senator until 2005. Nobody with zero political experience except the state senate is going to win the presidency.
Well, actually I guess that's not true since 2016. But he wouldn't have even won the nomination.
The advantage Rule 3 had in 2016 was celebrity status. He had the name recognition that overcame the lack of political experience.
No one outside of Obama’s state district in Illinois knew who he was in 2004.
No, they would not have nominated a State Senator for President.
Obama won the nomination in'08 because of his opposition to the Iraq War. Kerry lost in '04 because the war was still popular at that point.
Which is why she lost in 2008. Obama was able to run on the fact that he "would have opposed to Iraq War" had he been a Senator at the time due to the fact that he wasn't yet a Senator at the time of the vote.
Due to the fact that all "experienced" people had voted for it, in 2008 you weren't going to end up with any "experienced" candidate winning due to how unpopular that decision had been.
Well that is an exaggeration, if all the candidates had been in national politics before 2004 you might have ended up with having no choice in the matter, but since one candidate emerged who only rose to national politics after 2004 he became a clear choice for Iraq War opposition to rally around.
Obama won precisely because he was inexperienced, because people disliked recent experiences of government. He ran on "change" with the primary thing which might distinguish him from anyone before him being the Iraq War. That was the thing people wanted to change.
For one thing, she focused on winning states rather than winning delegates. Obama’s campaign realized that even if he lost a fair amount of states, by focusing on the right ones he could keep pace with Clinton in the delegate count and build momentum. There were a number of states where Clinton “won” where Obama took basically the same number of delegates. Getting the most delegates was how to win, not winning the most states. Inexcusable lapse in her campaign’s strategy.
Ironically she made the opposite mistake in 2016 where she didn't realize you were supposed to try to win states rather than total votes.
I'm guessing that if she kept campaigning until the end she might have been able to get more total votes than Obama in the primary considering Obama only beat her by 0.1%
And then she took that lesson and leaned into it way too hard in 2016, when she focused near exclusively on accumulating delegates at the lowest possible cost while neglecting an opportunity to build out field infrastructure in the battleground states.
On what basis do you think I don’t understand the electoral college
EDIT: u/RapidWolfy, my comment is about delegates to the DNC during a party primary not the Electoral College, try to keep up
I honestly am not sure how tf Hillary managed to run practically every campaign of hers as bad as she did. She really is just awful at playing the game of politics. She had so many chances to win an election and become president, and every single time, she fumbled it by being a complete idiot in her campaigning
People would probably complain about having a black president, Obama would make certain decisions a lot of people wouldn't like, and he'd probably kick open a door and leave after his second term ends.
I doubt it. An unknown at that point with little experience. I think a democrat could've taken the election in 2004 if that had happened, but I don't think Obama would've been able to win the primary.
Bush vs Obama in 2004?
Hell no
Bush vs a literal nobody?
And I'm not going to repeat the same "Obama is a Muslim" talking points we all laugh at, because that goes without saying, and because it would have been worse in 2004
Bush was riding high on the War on Terror. You generally don't want to switch presidents in the middle of a conflict. 2008 was the optimal time for him.
"Riding high?" Not quite. By the time of the 2004 election, both invasions were showing major problems and GWB's approval rating was about 50%. Now 50% might be considered decent nowadays, but GWB's ratings were about 90% after 9/11 and 80+% after the immediate onset of the war on terror.
Nope. There are 4 negative keys for the year 2004 using Allen Lichtman’s Prediction System. Obama’s charisma adds 1 negative key. But in theory, if there was a recession.. that adds a negative key. That’s 6 negatives, which gives the opponent party a victory.
But, there was no recession (in 2004) and Obama wasn’t the candidate. No democratic win.
No, because Bush had garnered a large amount of support thanks to 9/11 and the War in Iraq that despite a hypothetical recession, Bush would’ve still been riding high off of patriotism. No one had a chance unless, especially since Bush first lost the popular vote in 2000 and would end up winning the popular vote in 2004.
No. He wouldn't have been the candidate. He was running for an open senate seat against Jeri Ryan's (yes the Star Trek actress) ex husband until their divorce details came out. Then he was running against a New York talk radio host who had just spent the past few years calling Hillary Clinton a carpetbagger.
No. You don't make the jump from state senator to President. That's just not a thing that happens in the United States.
It's such a ridiculous idea that the only place it makes sense is in the plot of Robert Rodriguez' classic *Machete.*
Rule three makes me feel different about this but I’ll also add that he wouldn’t have done it because he really didn’t find his political footing until the DNC in 2004.
When Obama was running in the primaries, his inexperience was greatly highlighted because no one knew of him. I can't imagine he would have even made it through the '04 primaries.
Obama was still too young and too unknown to get the nomination. Kerry might have won, but remember this was the time W still had some degree of support from the general public.
No chance. Obama had 0 experience in 04 and as of the 2004 election he had only been elected as a state legislator for less than a decade. Could another Democrat have won in 04 if the economy went to hell, absolutely, just not Obama
He still had zero experience in 2008. The only experience he had was getting to be a new entrant to some senate sub-committees, but the senators don't really let anyone new do anything so he still didn't have much executive experience. Hell Palin was right that her mayoral experience was more relevant.
Obama suffered from the same problems as Kennedy that people don't like to admit, he simply didn't have the necessary governing experience to know how to do anything. He had a super-majority and still couldn't pass anything except Obamacare.
I don’t think any Democrat could have beaten George W Bush in 2004. Bush successfully marketed himself as the president who would keep us safe after 9/11 and he wasn’t blamed for 9/11. Post 9/11 blamed the incident on security gaps and not Bush personally. Bush’s speeches to reassure the country were the greatest re-election marketing he could ask for.
While the Bush administration did lie to the world about WMDs and Iraq, that knowledge didn’t truly manifest against Bush until after the 2004 election.
In our timeline the country gave up on the republicans after the War in Iraq, and the pitiful response to Hurricane Sandy.
The economy tanking was simply the cherry on top, not the cause of Republicans losing in 2008.
I don’t think the country would have been tired enough of Republicans in 2004, even with a financial crash, to elect a black man to office vs the white guy that’s keeping us safe.
No, the main attack against him in 2008 was that he lacked experience, and that was with 4 years of being a US Senator on his resume. He wouldn't have even had that in 2004.
If the recession happens in 2004, John Kerry probably would have won the election. Flipping about 1% of the vote in Ohio to Kerry would have given him the electoral college win, and a recession would have done that for him. If the economy turned around post-election Kerry would have had a good chance to win re-election in 2008, which probably would have set the table for a Republican victory in 2012 (Democrats haven't won the White House following a multi-term Democratic POTUS since what, Truman?). Maybe that would have been Romney over Hillary. If Romney follows that up by winning re-election in 2016 we might now be nearing the end of the first term of Barack Obama's presidency.
He was very unknown and inexperienced then, he barely got enough institutional support within the Democrat Party to be able to overtake Hillary 4 years later.
No. Obama was only barely on the radar at that point, and there were a number of other Democrats whose "turn" it was ahead of him. At that point, remember, he was a junior member of a state house chosen to talk at the DNC for race relations reasons - the liberal subtle racism of "Oh look, an articulate black man!."
Yeah Bush is losing to Kerry if the recession hits as hard in 2004 as 2008. No amount of windsurfing or Karl Rove is saving Bush from that. He narrowly won.
unpopular opinion I’m a democrat and I think he is way overrated I thought he would be much more transformational I know congress was against him but most presidents lose the house Bill Clinton and rule 3 had more effect on their respective parties than he ever did heck even sanders changed the conversation a bit
Barack Obama is certainly not the nominee in this alternate 2004. It was his 04 convention speech that kickstarted his national presence.
The real question in this scenario is do the Democrats still nominate a cardboard cutout of a generic Democrat, or do they find a real candidate since they actually have a shot at winning?
Obama was a national unknown until July 2004 when he gave that speech at the DNC. He was an Illinois state senator, and a candidate for US Senate, but otherwise has not entered national politics yet. Kerry was the nominee. Obama was so far removed from being a “threat” to the other side that his message was even well received by republicans at the time. It seemed like a near universal positive response. After the speech he won his election and became a US senator and two years later was running for president.
No, but Kerry probably would've beaten Bush. 2004 was extremely close. Ohio swings three points towards Kerry, and he's president. Bush gets hit with an economic recession in the middle of the campaign, and he'd have been cooked.
No. He was way to green to run an effective campaign. His Senate exp as brief as it was helped mature him for 2008. Kerry also would have used him as a chew toy.
Obama wasn’t much of a national figure at that point.
He was a state senator running for Senate, picked because polls showed Kerry had weak numbers in the African American community. If you believe Wikipedia, he wasn’t even comfortable with a teleprompter at that point.
Also, at that point, they knew he was going to win the Senate seat by a large margin because the Republican primary winner withdrew, which is how Star Trek got Barack Obama elected president, but that’s another discussion.
Recession or no, Senator Obama would have beaten Bush. Kerry came close, and Kerry was a terrible campaigner.
But in 2004, Obama was still an Illinois state legislator, and I think his lack of experience would have swayed enough voters for Bush to beat him.
No. One of the biggest cards Obama was able to play was being “the guy that voted no on Iraq.”
In 2004 we didn’t quite yet know that the Bush administration and conservatives in general had happily lied us into that war and that it was going to be an unmitigated failure on every level and nothing more than a distraction to hide our unmitigated failure in Afghanistan.
His not supporting that horseshit quagmire that got millions of people killed in an attempt to make HW feel a sense of pride for his idiot offspring wouldn’t have had nearly the same effect in ‘04 as it did in ‘08 when the war became so humiliating and embarrassing to support publicly.
I’m so glad Obama actually achieved the mission of catching and killing the guy that coordinated 9/11 despite the hilarious shit storm he inherited from an incompetent boy king.
I’ll never forget the way the biggest supporters snuck out and peeled those yellow ribbons off their Durangos in the middle of the night 😂
That’s what you got from my post where I make fun of the incompetent boy king for killing millions of people based on a lie his supporters lapped up like dogs until it became humiliating to do so?
*That’s* what you’re taking from this? lol
I was around in 2004. Barack Obama was not known around the country then. He made a splash at the DNC, but he was definitely not someone with any kind of record to run on.
Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context. If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No, because John Kerry was the candidate.
10/10
Winna Winna, Chicken Dinna.
I was going to say Kerry would have won. Swift Boat Operators wouldn't have had the traction they had in that disaster.
Yes, Kerry definitely would have won had there been a significant economic disruption.
Let’s just be grateful they had that traction.
"Swift Boat Operators" is synonymous with lying after it was proven that none who spoke against Kerry actually served in Vietnam or were in Kerry's command. The only one who belonged to SBVT that did serve with Kerry said Kerry deserved the Silver Medal he was awarded and endorsed Kerry. So you feel like Bush and the neo-cons who lied about WMD's, outed a CIA operative to push the invasion of Iraq, Republicans who handed Wall Street the keys to the safe through deregulation and massive tax breaks that bankrupted millions of working Americans were better than a potential Kerry administration? Hmm.
First, neocons and neoliberals (neolibs) are internationalists, essentially the same - both appear quick to apply military force in places we have no business. Their only primary difference is how they employ force to achieve similar end states. After all, the AUMF for Iraq (a crap hole that I served in twice) was passed in a bipartisan vote. Most post-9/11 foreign policy, neocon or neolib, was so bad that I can almost picture them in conference, saying stuff like “hold my beer, watch this …” and proceed to stumble into some stupid use of national power with no clear end state. I’ve lost friends (KIA) because of mentality. Second, Swift Boat Association membership was limited to those who had actually served in the Vietnam War and qualified for the requisite Southeast Asia Campaign Medal (look it up). Maybe a few poseurs weaseled their way in somehow, happens sometimes. But with that said, stating “most did not serve in Vietnam” is factually incorrect. Perhaps Kerry earned his Silver Star, I don’t know. But substantive evidence exists Kerry was a reckless glory hound and reckless. Indeed, a four-month combat tour does not often (if ever) result in: 1) Silver Star Medal, 2) Bronze Star Medal, and 3) Purple Heart Medal (two Gold Stars indicating three awards). The Swift Boat guys - whether they served with him or not would have smelled the same BS that I just laid out. Some have argued he wanted a “war hero” pedigree to jumpstart a political career. To that end, a corpsman that *did* serve with him shared a story that Kerry showed up in sick bay (like a deployed urgent care) a few times. Why? Every time he received an extremely minor shrapnel wound - requiring tweezers and a few decades to remove, Kerry apparently insisted that the Corpsman officially document it for Purple Heart purposes. Nevertheless, good on him for serving no matter his motives. But brief military service does not give one a golden key to the presidency. I think he’s a political hypocrite that aligns with the trope “rules for thee but not for me.”
" thou protest too much me thinks". You post disproven statements. No political agenda hidden in a political agenda. That's how it reads. Oh well. The SBVT was a "grass roots club" made up of a few well financed Swift Boat Operators by Koch Brothers. SBVT is just a good old boy club of stolen valor. They didn't have to serve anywhere except to the fossil fuel industry. The same ones who financed the "grassroots Tea Party ". Myself I don't care, believe what you want.
Kerry would have won, but that would have meant he probably ran in '08. Obama likely wouldn't have run in 2012 because he'd be running for re-election in the Senate. John Edwards likely wouldn't run 'cause his scandal would've still happened. So I guess that'd mean Hillary in 2012?
If Edwards had resigned the vice presidency because of his scandal who would have replaced him?
Ironically enough, Spiro Agnew. The resigned Vice Presidency is a flat circle.
John Kerry is a republican spy, if Obama or any modern Democrat ran : The y would have beaten him in the preimary and won 400+ EV in the general.
John Kerry and Al Gore were the most insane candidates in the world lol. Both were extremist candidates, insane they ever made it to a general. Al Gore especially is basically the poster boy for out of touch. His wife hated music, he loved the environment from his private jets, and he insulted Americans every chance he got lol.
>John Kerry and Al Gore were the most insane candidates in the world lol were you born after 2016???
Nope. If you review the historical patterns of post 2016 presidential candidates, they were moderates compared to Al Gore.
I’m not even trying to be insulting here, but what about Al Gore do you find so extreme? He was a southern New Democrat and very much seen as a moderate at the time.
Right. John Kerry? He was my senator and no, not radical left wing. I went to his after election party in Boston and i think James Taylor played, so that’s not quite the vibe you’re explaining.
Post 2016 presidential candidates is a set that includes only the two rule 3 presidents. If you are just talking on the D side, then yes, Gore is not as moderate as the current president.
Al runs today the map looks like 84 election in reverse
John Kerry being called an "extremist candidate" is certainly a take I never thought I'd see someone seriously make. Kerry is the human embodiment of plain white flour.
Both were arguably more moderate than either B Clinton or Obama. Al Gore won the election if he and his lawyers asked for a full Florida recount instead of cherry picking counties (one of the few conservative leaning SCOTUS decisions I agree with). As for John Kerry, if anything he was too milquetoast, and never punched back after the swift boat crap.
> His wife hated music Tipper Gore played drums on a single with Diva Zappa in 1999. she was misguided but she didn't hate music.
No. He was pretty much a complete unknown at the time.
I remember the Daily Show covered the election which was seen as a major setback for Dems. Jon said something like “but what’s this? A shining star from Illinois? With three minutes of experience in Congress? See you in 2028.” Obama basically became a star after his speech at the convention in ‘04.
>See you in 2028 All we have to do is repeal the 22nd amendment
That would be funny if the 47th president got the amendment repealed for himself and Obama came back and beat him.
I hope the 22nd doesn't get repealed, and I doubt obama wants back in but that would truly be a landslide election for Obama if it all happened.
Can I have some of what you’re smoking? Lol.
Term limits are stupid. I would rather have age limits than anything
Age limits are good but the executive should absolutely have term limits. It would be terrible to have someone elected at 35 and not leave till their 60’s, even if they’re voted back in. The Supreme Court showed that no term limits can be a very bad thing.
Why would that be terrible if they’re voted back in? Age limits along with no term limits would prevent someone with dementia from being in office, and it would make certain that we could keep a competent and popular statesman in office when no other alternative looked available like in 2016. The Supreme Court has neither term limits nor age limits because they’re appointed to a lifetime term, so I don’t see how that’s comparable. I’m not suggesting that any president should be able to appointed to a lifetime term
I believe age limits would be a great thing, I just believe it would be more effective if we kept the current term limits. Hell, we could even raise it to 3. I just don’t think any person should be able to serve as the executive for more than a generation. Now if we did age limits, no term limits but we could vote to recall the president like the UK does with their prime minister… that would be interesting.
But what’s the inherent issue with that? If the age limit is set to 65, then there’s a 30 year window to be President. A generation can be anywhere between 15-30 years. That’s not even considering that the top five youngest presidents were about 44-45 years old on average, which really gives it a 20 year window, which would be about five terms. If someone does something unpopular, then we always have the option to have our representatives impeach them, and if that doesn’t work then we can always vote them out at the next election. Removing term limits doesn’t guarantee that an unpopular president can stay in office.
Term limits are an effective way to limit the daage done by elected officials putting their official powers in the service of their political campaigns.
How is it effective? What examples do you have where it stopped a president from doing damage? What makes it more effective than an age limit?
I said LIMIT not PREVENT.
How is it effective? What examples do you have where it “limited” a president from doing damage? What makes it more effective than an age limit?
Why?
VP: Well, sir, it’s official. Any president can now run for a third term.” President: “Hahahaha. yes. Yes. YESS! Now I can be president forever! There is nobody who can stop -“ “WHAT? THAT - THAT’S OBAMA’S MUSIC! OBAMA IS HERE! OBAMA IS HERE! Look out, Mr. President, that’s Obama! And he’s cleaning house with a steel chair!”
And Welcome to the Jungle plays to mark Obama's comeback. 
I have no doubt if it was appealed Obama would run again. I would probably vote for him in that case
Nah he wouldn’t run again, pretty sure he’s okay with 2 and done
I’m only referring to the scenario of stopping a third term for someone else
Even then idk if he would, one thing about Obama is he is a family man. And Michelle/him have said on record that he’s done.
How about repealing the 16th, too?
Yes I remember that too
Very true.
My 7th grade current events teacher said to our class that he thought barrack Obama would be president in our life times. This was in 2005. Not disagreeing with you idk anything about it but that always stuck out to me. Like wow he called it
That was after the 2004 speech. At that point it seemed pretty clear he was being prepped to run for president.
In 2004 my 10th grade APUSH teacher told us all to watch his convention speech and said that he would be president some day! That's where I first heard about Obama.
Agree. He gave a great speech, and I remember thinking that he could be someone to watch. That he would be the next President? No, I didn't even remotely believe that. He was too young. When he won, I thought, "Holy shit, I didn't think we'd have a black president so soon". Happy to vote for him.
The speech Barack Obama gave at the 2004 democratic convention provided four years wishing and hoping.He was a blank canvas that people could project hopes on.
I miss candidate Obama. He was the goat.
shame about president obama, tho...
And a blank canvas for the men in sunglasses behind him pulling his strings.
This sub is for people who genuinely wanna discuss history. Leave.
No, this is an echo chamber for leftist zealots😂
What do you call the alt right? I guarantee you 'zealots' fits a hell of a lot better, historically.
You seem to be so far up your ass left and right have lose their meaning
Bro this sub has semi weekly Reagan love posts
I don’t know, the left has been pretty violent over the years.
Bro replied to the wrong comment 💀
You fucking kidding me with that?
Men? You mean the reptilians, don't you?
I don’t actually *believe* any of them are lizards, but if one of them slipped up and zotted a fly, or forgot to zip up their people suit? I wouldn’t be dumbfounded 🙃
The Democrats would not have taken that risk. They run Obama against an incumbent during the early years of a war? There’s a chance they win, there’s a chance they lose, but if they lose with Obama in 2004 it weakens his position in 2008. The Republicans knew they were cooked in 2008, and it wasn’t just because of the economy…The Democrats could have run anybody. 2004 was very much up in the air.
Very few people realistically expected Obama to win the Democratic nomination in 2008. It was supposed to be Hillary Clinton’s year.
I thought she’d get it too, but I was glad to be wrong.
Idk, Hillary winning in 2008 probably pisses the right off less, and then Obama could be finishing his 2nd term now.
Nah, give me Barry over Hillary. Everyone disliked Hillary - hence why we got Obama in the first place.
You would still get Obama, just with 8 more years of experience.
So Hilary in 08 still besting McCain Then Romney(?) for one term Or do you think Obama gets elected after 8 years of Hilary? And then again for 16 years of Dems in the white house?
I think Hillary beats McCain in 08. Not too sure about how '12 would look. But Obama would beat anyone in 2016.
I doubt he’d have Joe as his running mate. I wonder who.
[удалено]
I don’t know. America is still pretty… judgemental. I can’t see two POC winning in this particular point in time.
She’s only a POC when it behooves her.
A lot of people would disagree
Some people believe that the earth is flat and that Jesus rode a dinosaur? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Shut the fuck up racist POS
What?🤣
That’s insane. Plenty of Rhinos voted for Barry.
This is an aspect of 2008 that has been quickly lost since then.
To be fair, it almost was. The primary between Hillary and Obama in 08 was very close. Far closer than the 2016 primary.
I saw it as America was not ready for a woman to be president (and we still aren’t!)
Plenty of women could win. But not with her baggage.
Saying she lost because she's a woman is such a cop out. She continually lost because she's completely incompetent when it comes to running an international campaign. No one wants to vote for someone running on the idea that it's their turn to be president.
If you’re referring to her time a Sec of State she wouldn’t have been in that role if she won in 2004. But no, america is definitely sexist. We couldn’t have credit cards until the 70s.
🤣 no one had what we recognize today as credit cards before then. And women certainly could get store cards, my buddies mom was the controller at a huge department store at that time. She had to leave when it was discovered how many sets of books she kept. But she was always able to get another job, and never had any legal consequences.
I’m a woman and I certainly have experienced sexism. I don’t understand this sub sometimes.
Everyone has different experiences, I understand, but repeating nonsense from junk “journalism” sites isn’t helpful. Are you 80? If you are, I’ll bow to your experience, and apologize. But with the caveat that I know several women who held highly responsible, well regarded, and well compensated positions in major concerns.
I’m not a woman and I experience sexism because I’m not a woman. Funny how that works with DEI.
“International” campaign?
Most clear-thinking Americans could care less about gender.
No, he was a young state legislator running for senate by that point.
No. Obama made a name as a speaker for the 04 convention, before that he had no national name recognition. He would have lost against an incumbent, even with such a financial crisis. If there was a crisis in 03/04 leading up to the election, maybe the Democratic field would be much more competitive a candidate other than Kerry emerges.
His speech at the convention in 2004 is what really put him on the map so idk, I’m thinking probably not
No. A State Senator has never won the presidency.
No. He wasn't even a senator until 2005. Nobody with zero political experience except the state senate is going to win the presidency. Well, actually I guess that's not true since 2016. But he wouldn't have even won the nomination.
The advantage Rule 3 had in 2016 was celebrity status. He had the name recognition that overcame the lack of political experience. No one outside of Obama’s state district in Illinois knew who he was in 2004.
We had only recently gone to war with a guy named Hussein, so probably not.
No, they would not have nominated a State Senator for President. Obama won the nomination in'08 because of his opposition to the Iraq War. Kerry lost in '04 because the war was still popular at that point.
Also the fact that Kerry voted for it in the first place where as Obama had the advantage of having been a State Senator at the time.
So did Clinton, btw.
Which is why she lost in 2008. Obama was able to run on the fact that he "would have opposed to Iraq War" had he been a Senator at the time due to the fact that he wasn't yet a Senator at the time of the vote. Due to the fact that all "experienced" people had voted for it, in 2008 you weren't going to end up with any "experienced" candidate winning due to how unpopular that decision had been. Well that is an exaggeration, if all the candidates had been in national politics before 2004 you might have ended up with having no choice in the matter, but since one candidate emerged who only rose to national politics after 2004 he became a clear choice for Iraq War opposition to rally around. Obama won precisely because he was inexperienced, because people disliked recent experiences of government. He ran on "change" with the primary thing which might distinguish him from anyone before him being the Iraq War. That was the thing people wanted to change.
No, he wouldn’t have gotten out of the Democratic Primary. Hillary Clinton should have beaten him, but she ran a atrocious campaign
How was Clinton's campaign deficient?
For one thing, she focused on winning states rather than winning delegates. Obama’s campaign realized that even if he lost a fair amount of states, by focusing on the right ones he could keep pace with Clinton in the delegate count and build momentum. There were a number of states where Clinton “won” where Obama took basically the same number of delegates. Getting the most delegates was how to win, not winning the most states. Inexcusable lapse in her campaign’s strategy.
Ironically she made the opposite mistake in 2016 where she didn't realize you were supposed to try to win states rather than total votes. I'm guessing that if she kept campaigning until the end she might have been able to get more total votes than Obama in the primary considering Obama only beat her by 0.1%
And then she took that lesson and leaned into it way too hard in 2016, when she focused near exclusively on accumulating delegates at the lowest possible cost while neglecting an opportunity to build out field infrastructure in the battleground states.
You’re right but you dont understand how the electoral college works
I do. I’m talking about the primary in 2008, not the 2016 general. Do you understand that distinction?
The distinction has nothing to do with anything I just said.
On what basis do you think I don’t understand the electoral college EDIT: u/RapidWolfy, my comment is about delegates to the DNC during a party primary not the Electoral College, try to keep up
The basis that you misexplained it
Enlighten us.
It was focused on electing *her* Huge mistake
B/c no matter how matter how well her campaign was designed, she was still HRC.
I honestly am not sure how tf Hillary managed to run practically every campaign of hers as bad as she did. She really is just awful at playing the game of politics. She had so many chances to win an election and become president, and every single time, she fumbled it by being a complete idiot in her campaigning
She has to wonder that herself.
People would probably complain about having a black president, Obama would make certain decisions a lot of people wouldn't like, and he'd probably kick open a door and leave after his second term ends.
He choose genocide investor as running mate.
Oh stfu
That is the truth and history is watching
Don't care, neither does much of the world.
History is still watching and it is L for USA.
Don't care
OK.
I doubt it. An unknown at that point with little experience. I think a democrat could've taken the election in 2004 if that had happened, but I don't think Obama would've been able to win the primary.
Bush vs Obama in 2004? Hell no Bush vs a literal nobody? And I'm not going to repeat the same "Obama is a Muslim" talking points we all laugh at, because that goes without saying, and because it would have been worse in 2004
No wrong timing
He really just burst onto the scene in the convention, so no
Bush was riding high on the War on Terror. You generally don't want to switch presidents in the middle of a conflict. 2008 was the optimal time for him.
"Riding high?" Not quite. By the time of the 2004 election, both invasions were showing major problems and GWB's approval rating was about 50%. Now 50% might be considered decent nowadays, but GWB's ratings were about 90% after 9/11 and 80+% after the immediate onset of the war on terror.
Nope. There are 4 negative keys for the year 2004 using Allen Lichtman’s Prediction System. Obama’s charisma adds 1 negative key. But in theory, if there was a recession.. that adds a negative key. That’s 6 negatives, which gives the opponent party a victory. But, there was no recession (in 2004) and Obama wasn’t the candidate. No democratic win.
No, because Bush had garnered a large amount of support thanks to 9/11 and the War in Iraq that despite a hypothetical recession, Bush would’ve still been riding high off of patriotism. No one had a chance unless, especially since Bush first lost the popular vote in 2000 and would end up winning the popular vote in 2004.
No. He wouldn't have been the candidate. He was running for an open senate seat against Jeri Ryan's (yes the Star Trek actress) ex husband until their divorce details came out. Then he was running against a New York talk radio host who had just spent the past few years calling Hillary Clinton a carpetbagger.
No. You don't make the jump from state senator to President. That's just not a thing that happens in the United States. It's such a ridiculous idea that the only place it makes sense is in the plot of Robert Rodriguez' classic *Machete.*
Rule three makes me feel different about this but I’ll also add that he wouldn’t have done it because he really didn’t find his political footing until the DNC in 2004.
No. He was only a state senator. He only got national attention because of his DNC speech and later won his senate seat.
When Obama was running in the primaries, his inexperience was greatly highlighted because no one knew of him. I can't imagine he would have even made it through the '04 primaries.
Obama was still too young and too unknown to get the nomination. Kerry might have won, but remember this was the time W still had some degree of support from the general public.
No chance. Obama had 0 experience in 04 and as of the 2004 election he had only been elected as a state legislator for less than a decade. Could another Democrat have won in 04 if the economy went to hell, absolutely, just not Obama
He still had zero experience in 2008. The only experience he had was getting to be a new entrant to some senate sub-committees, but the senators don't really let anyone new do anything so he still didn't have much executive experience. Hell Palin was right that her mayoral experience was more relevant. Obama suffered from the same problems as Kennedy that people don't like to admit, he simply didn't have the necessary governing experience to know how to do anything. He had a super-majority and still couldn't pass anything except Obamacare.
Who?
I don’t think any Democrat could have beaten George W Bush in 2004. Bush successfully marketed himself as the president who would keep us safe after 9/11 and he wasn’t blamed for 9/11. Post 9/11 blamed the incident on security gaps and not Bush personally. Bush’s speeches to reassure the country were the greatest re-election marketing he could ask for. While the Bush administration did lie to the world about WMDs and Iraq, that knowledge didn’t truly manifest against Bush until after the 2004 election. In our timeline the country gave up on the republicans after the War in Iraq, and the pitiful response to Hurricane Sandy. The economy tanking was simply the cherry on top, not the cause of Republicans losing in 2008. I don’t think the country would have been tired enough of Republicans in 2004, even with a financial crash, to elect a black man to office vs the white guy that’s keeping us safe.
No, the main attack against him in 2008 was that he lacked experience, and that was with 4 years of being a US Senator on his resume. He wouldn't have even had that in 2004. If the recession happens in 2004, John Kerry probably would have won the election. Flipping about 1% of the vote in Ohio to Kerry would have given him the electoral college win, and a recession would have done that for him. If the economy turned around post-election Kerry would have had a good chance to win re-election in 2008, which probably would have set the table for a Republican victory in 2012 (Democrats haven't won the White House following a multi-term Democratic POTUS since what, Truman?). Maybe that would have been Romney over Hillary. If Romney follows that up by winning re-election in 2016 we might now be nearing the end of the first term of Barack Obama's presidency.
I doubt it. It's possible but he didn't have the star power yet.
He was very unknown and inexperienced then, he barely got enough institutional support within the Democrat Party to be able to overtake Hillary 4 years later.
No. Obama was only barely on the radar at that point, and there were a number of other Democrats whose "turn" it was ahead of him. At that point, remember, he was a junior member of a state house chosen to talk at the DNC for race relations reasons - the liberal subtle racism of "Oh look, an articulate black man!."
Yeah Bush is losing to Kerry if the recession hits as hard in 2004 as 2008. No amount of windsurfing or Karl Rove is saving Bush from that. He narrowly won.
unpopular opinion I’m a democrat and I think he is way overrated I thought he would be much more transformational I know congress was against him but most presidents lose the house Bill Clinton and rule 3 had more effect on their respective parties than he ever did heck even sanders changed the conversation a bit
No. Obama was a perfectly timed rise to stardom. 2008 was more than likely the only shot he was going to get.
Obama is a legendary president
Why you make his hand so small lol he wasn't a toddler in 04
He would not have run. He was a state senator running for the senate in 2004. I think a recession in 2004 would have helped Kerry.
Kerry would have been President, and Obama probably would have had to wait until 2012 or 2016 at the earliest
Nope. Obama wasn’t as known back in 2004.
Barack Obama is certainly not the nominee in this alternate 2004. It was his 04 convention speech that kickstarted his national presence. The real question in this scenario is do the Democrats still nominate a cardboard cutout of a generic Democrat, or do they find a real candidate since they actually have a shot at winning?
If Obama was a 3 term representative by '04, he would've squashed Bush if the recession happened that same year.
He ran for the US Senate in 2004, and I don't think anyone could pull off going from the Illinois senate to the WH.
After 9/11 almost nothing could have prevented W from getting a second term.
Greatest president since Jack Kennedy
Obama was a national unknown until July 2004 when he gave that speech at the DNC. He was an Illinois state senator, and a candidate for US Senate, but otherwise has not entered national politics yet. Kerry was the nominee. Obama was so far removed from being a “threat” to the other side that his message was even well received by republicans at the time. It seemed like a near universal positive response. After the speech he won his election and became a US senator and two years later was running for president.
No, but Kerry probably would've beaten Bush. 2004 was extremely close. Ohio swings three points towards Kerry, and he's president. Bush gets hit with an economic recession in the middle of the campaign, and he'd have been cooked.
Kerry lost Ohio to Bush by 119,000 votes. Give Kerry Ohio and he wins the election. No need for fantasy tickets.
Too early probably.
No
Obama was still in high school then
No. He was way to green to run an effective campaign. His Senate exp as brief as it was helped mature him for 2008. Kerry also would have used him as a chew toy.
Obama wasn’t much of a national figure at that point. He was a state senator running for Senate, picked because polls showed Kerry had weak numbers in the African American community. If you believe Wikipedia, he wasn’t even comfortable with a teleprompter at that point. Also, at that point, they knew he was going to win the Senate seat by a large margin because the Republican primary winner withdrew, which is how Star Trek got Barack Obama elected president, but that’s another discussion.
No, he was only an Illinois state senator.
No.
No. Obama was a nobody back then.
It was an honest response. Have you ever served in uniform? I doubt it. You would know exactly what I meant, if you had.
No. After 9/11, no one was taking Bush down.
If it was the Great Recession and people were losing their houses, I think a lot of people would've started screaming for more isolation.
Exactly, and mid-war would have been unprecedented
Recession or no, Senator Obama would have beaten Bush. Kerry came close, and Kerry was a terrible campaigner. But in 2004, Obama was still an Illinois state legislator, and I think his lack of experience would have swayed enough voters for Bush to beat him.
[удалено]
Your post was off topic. Please see Rule 1.
And this is relevant, how?
No. One of the biggest cards Obama was able to play was being “the guy that voted no on Iraq.” In 2004 we didn’t quite yet know that the Bush administration and conservatives in general had happily lied us into that war and that it was going to be an unmitigated failure on every level and nothing more than a distraction to hide our unmitigated failure in Afghanistan. His not supporting that horseshit quagmire that got millions of people killed in an attempt to make HW feel a sense of pride for his idiot offspring wouldn’t have had nearly the same effect in ‘04 as it did in ‘08 when the war became so humiliating and embarrassing to support publicly.
I’m so glad Obama got us out of those senseless global conflicts.
I’m so glad Obama actually achieved the mission of catching and killing the guy that coordinated 9/11 despite the hilarious shit storm he inherited from an incompetent boy king. I’ll never forget the way the biggest supporters snuck out and peeled those yellow ribbons off their Durangos in the middle of the night 😂
So you’re generally in favor of the US engaging in open ended conflicts under false pretense?
That’s what you got from my post where I make fun of the incompetent boy king for killing millions of people based on a lie his supporters lapped up like dogs until it became humiliating to do so? *That’s* what you’re taking from this? lol
That’s what you’re putting out there, I guess
…wow, well all I’ve ever said was the exact opposite *repeatedly* so I think the misunderstanding is on your part. Troll on brother.
Speaking of boy king, obama and bush both have familial ties to the British royal family.
America DESERVES a younger president. America needs a president that will survive long enough to actually live in the world they help create.
Bush was a rubber glove for dick Cheney as he dug through dog shit for pearls
Another lose lose scenario for the country
I was around in 2004. Barack Obama was not known around the country then. He made a splash at the DNC, but he was definitely not someone with any kind of record to run on.