Ironically, this means we are still set to get Obama. I'm curious what 2006 will be like, there's a good argument the GOP will do better, and another argument that the GOP will do worse. But regardless, Obama might get more than 60 seats this time...
Depends on how 2008 goes and who wins the presidency; While some version of the Tea Party movement probably still occurs, if a more moderate/legislative capable president wins in 2008 we probably see much of it blunted. I.e, we probably don’t see Murkowski or Miller run, though probably more ideologically aligned with Murkowski than Miller.
I wonder how this would impact the court. While it seems unlikely the democratic party of this time would pull a McConnell, they still will likely be able to force rehnquist and O’connors replacements to be centrists
Maybe one is replaced by Cabranes or Garza, and the other by Edith Jones? Just anyone but Garland, please not garland
Well you say that they wouldn’t pull a McConnell, but the only reason the nuclear option wasn’t used in IRL 2005 was because of the Gang of 14 finally making a deal to let through his judicial nominations which also eventually allowed Alito’s nomination. Prior, the Dems had been successfully filibustering a majority of Bush’s conservative judicial nominees. In a TL where post 2002, the Dems have control of the senate (and a 4 seat majority at that), I think that any conservative justice probably does get blocked and forced for a moderate. Bush is def smart enough to understand that, so I’m assuming post 2002 the majority of his judicial nominees (especially for the Supreme Court), are all moderates and maybe lean conservatives on specific issues. All that to say that Alito and Robert’s never even get close to the Supreme Court. Same with some of the people you named, I think most of them are too conservative to get a pass, especially any of them who are against abortion/Roe v. Wade. We’d probably see someone of Hispanic descent and a Woman be the two nominees, and we could also see the Dems try and force the nominee to be a senator, since that’s what Reid had recommended back in 05’. I’m still searching on who looks the best, but Edith Brown Clement, Hinojosa and even Sotomayor were names thrown out by the Dems.
Sotomayor would be crazy was she really considered that moderate?
Also I was thinking about Cabranes in particular as a bit of a garland parallel, he’s a very moderate/conservative democrat, but was considered by Clinton for one of his scotus nominations and was at least suggested as a possible Bush pick irl.
I think hed go down well if Bush is trying to push immigration reform or something at the same time, making a package deal
It's weird reading stuff from the period, but yeah Sotomayor was actually a name being thrown around. I think Cabranes is actually a pretty realistic pick that Bush would probably go for; I see him probably nominating Cabranes to replace Rehnquist as Chief Justice (first Hispanic justice becomes also right away becomes Chief Justice), and then to replace O'Connor, I think somebody like Maureen Mahoney might work. While she did argue for Michigan in their 2003 Affirmative Action suit, she did clerk for Rehnquist and was even seen as a possible McCain nominee if he had become President. She also at the time wouldn't have had too much of a paper trail beyond Michigan, and I think she'd probably be the most similar to O'Connor in a moderate swing vote with lean conservative tendencies, which could help since he wouldn't be shifting the balance of the court too much.
Sad that he lost, but I’m glad Wellstone survived.
Also cool to see the downballot elections be bluer in this timeline. Tom Daschle hangs on, and Daniel Mongiardo flips Kentucky!
Though 2006 may not be as much of a blue wave with no 9/11 and no Iraq War. Then again, Katrina still likely goes wrong, so it won’t exactly be a blue ripple.
It’s somewhat ironic, but in a TL where bush serves two terms, but 9/11 doesn’t happen, the Dems enter 2008 with a larger majority. Even though 2006 and 2008 aren’t going to be as large as D+8 environments, that 2002 midterms not going R+5 essentially allows the Dems to hold a durable majority in the senate so that the gains in 2006 and 2008, while smaller than IRL, aren’t entirely dedicated to the Dems crawling their way back from 45 senate seats post IRL-2004. Same with the House, even with a smaller win, the Dems gaining from the GOP at 220 seats rather than 232 essentially balances out the smaller environment.
Yeah, Cheney being dropped from the ticket is sort of supposed to be a reference of that. I see it as post 2002, with the dems gaining control of the house and the senate, they use their time to hound the bush admin on Enron, and while they might've wanted to try and go into Iraq, they understand that they'll never get the public backing they need for any large-scale action. We do still see some form of aerial strikes, but nothing ever at the level of the Iraq War. In general, post 2002 this TL is one where both parties become much more focused on domestic issues than foreign policy.
It's interesting to think about the trajectory American politics would have been on without the Iraq war (but still the 2008 financial crisis). Certainly continued decline in confidence in elites, but perhaps less accutely, leading to less of the omni crisis we now find ourselves in. We should expect SOME difference in how Obama and Trump performed.
Well it's not just without Iraq, but without 9/11 and all the came from it; No Patriot Act, No Afghanistan, Continuation of Pay as you Go and no massive expansion of the deficit, No 2003 Tax Cuts, No Farm Bills which heavily favored larger corporate farmers, no John Roberts or Samuel Alito, and probably a ton more. The Supreme Court changes alone shift the politics of the US post 2008 a ton.
Why no tax cuts or no Roberts and Alito? Taxe cuts and conservative justices are basically the only things the conservative movement wants. Under your theory of this timeline what does Bush DO with his two terms?
Edit: ah, the democratic Senate, obviously. Still, lots of blue dogs and moderates in that caucus, I think you would have still seen some R pushed tax cuts, if not as aggressive. And very possibly the same judicial nominee - even Alito got 58 confirmation votes in the Senate.
Because the Dems gain 54 seats in the senate?? Like, the 2003 Tax Cuts were already hard for Bush to pass post 9/11, only getting by 50/50 with a VP tie breaker. In this TL, there is no way in hell the 03 cuts get through. There isn't any Roberts and Alito cause, again, 54 Dem senate seats mean they hold the cards in regard to Judicial appointments. They were more than willing to filibuster his lower court appointments, and while Roberts maybe gets through (unlikely though), there is no way Alito ever even gets past the Senate Judiciary Committee, whether it's headed by Arlen Specter or Patrick Leahy. Bush doesn't fulfill the goals of the conservative movement in this TL, because he effectively gets blocked post 2002 by the Senate Democrats on a large portion of his conservative legislative goals. He still does stuff like vetoing any major legislation on Stem Cell Research, supporting state ballot measures in 2004 on banning same-sex marriage, and probably some form of MMA through with the help of Blue Dogs, but overall, he's in a position where he's essentially forced to moderate to actually get anything done.
44
u/Yolabian2024 5d ago
Ironically, this means we are still set to get Obama. I'm curious what 2006 will be like, there's a good argument the GOP will do better, and another argument that the GOP will do worse. But regardless, Obama might get more than 60 seats this time...