AHC: President Daniel Inouye

[chessfiend]

Your mission should you choose to accept it:

Have Daniel Inouye become President of the United States without using assassination or "so and so dies becaue of"

I currently have no clue how to pull this off.

[Pyeknu494]

Reviewing the honourable Senator's political career, I would say the best place to start would be around the time of the Iran-Contra hearings in the late 1980s, with his mentioning the "shadow government" that sponsored the whole mess.

Have a fringe-left element of the Democrats begin to press for Inouye to ascend to the White House, citing his war record (loss of right forearm, Medal of Honor and other awards), which could win the support of other Asian-Americans, then spread to the various other ethnic minorities for a possible 1992 run.

[A J Kemble]

Well he did well during the Watergate hearings didn't he? So perhaps he runs in 1976 instead of Jimmy Carter?

Or - he was friends with Bob Dole - what if he were nominated as a Dole VP sometime during an alternate 1980s?

The problem is: there is a very small window of time between the nation recovering from WW2 enough to elect a Japanese-American (even a Medal of Honour winner) as President, and that whole late 80s early 1990s "OMG Japan is taking over the world" fearmongering...

[usertron2020]

It's not the man, it's the state, sorry to say. The good man would have had to be Californian. Hawaii just doesn't have a worthy number of Electoral Votes (4) to make a run conceivable.

[A J Kemble]

Originally Posted by usertron2020

It's not the man, it's the state, sorry to say. The good man would have had to be Californian. Hawaii just doesn't have a worthy number of Electoral Votes (4) to make a run conceivable.

I thought of that too - it's plausible he might have settled somewhere else after the war, but what chance would he have stood getting elected?

Besides - Georgia and Arkansas are small states too...

[troosvelt]

Originally Posted by A J Kemble

Well he did well during the Watergate hearings didn't he? So perhaps he runs in 1976 instead of Jimmy Carter?

Or - he was friends with Bob Dole - what if he were nominated as a Dole VP sometime during an alternate 1980s?

The problem is: there is a very small window of time between the nation recovering from WW2 enough to elect a Japanese-American (even a Medal of Honour winner) as President, and that whole late 80s early 1990s "OMG Japan is taking over the world" fearmongering...

Also the fact that Dole is Republican and Inoyue a Democrat.

[chessfiend]

I agree with the window being small, but I do not think which state he comes from matters. If he had the support of his party fully then he could win.

I think I am going to have go with 1992 as being the best time for him to get the nomination. Maybe even have a Inouye/Clinton ticket. I think that could very well result in 16yrs. of Dem control of the White House.

1993-2001-President Daniel Inouye

2001-2009-President Bill Clinton

this would be an interesting timeline to explore if it was achievable.

[Wendell]

While an Inouye presidency seems possible, it's not going to usurp the trend away from Republican administrations since 1968

[mcdo]

Originally Posted by A J Kemble

The problem is: there is a very small window of time between the nation recovering from WW2 enough to elect a Japanese-American (even a Medal of Honour winner) as President, and that whole late 80s early 1990s "OMG Japan is taking over the world" fearmongering...

I think this is an important point. Most of you are too young to remember it, but Japanophobia was very real. I remember in 1988, when the US and the USSR were widely perceived to be locked in an arms race, there was a national poll conducted where more people cited Japan as the biggest threat to the nation that the USSR. As late as 1995, when it was already clear that the Japanese economy was in dire straits, Clinton got a lot of political capital from "finally getting tough with Japan", when the Yen hit 70-something to the Dollar. You are going to have a significant problem with people being afraid he will be "too easy" on Japan. I think the whole 1984-1996 period is going to be difficult.

As others have said, why not have him play a more prominent role in uncovering Watergate, and get into thw White House then?

[Plumber]

Originally Posted by Wendell

While an Inouye presidency seems possible, it's not going to usurp the trend away from Republican administrations since 1968

It's easy, really. Gore almost won in 2000. VP Clinton would wipe the floor with Dubya. Add a butterfly net, and 9/11 makes Clinton a war president who gets reelected in 2004.

[troosvelt]

Perhaps so, but that then means 16 yrs of Democrats in the WH when the war fatigue and economic collapse hits in 2008 so 2006 and 2008 would not be good years for them

[Plumber]

Originally Posted by troosvelt

Perhaps so, but that then means 16 yrs of Democrats in the WH when the war fatigue and economic collapse hits in 2008 so 2006 and 2008 would not be good years for them

Yup. Though the Republicans could easily hand the Democrats everything back in 2010 and 2012, and probably would.

Personally, I think '88 would be the best time for it.

[chessfiend]

Originally Posted by troosvelt

Perhaps so, but that then means 16 yrs of Democrats in the WH when the war fatigue and economic collapse hits in 2008 so 2006 and 2008 would not be good years for them

butterflies....there may be no war fatigue in 2006, depends on how Clinton handles Afghanistan. I seriously doubt he would go into Iraq. There may be no economic collapse in 2008 with a different administration in power.

[Mikey]

Originally Posted by chessfiend

butterflies....there may be no war fatigue in 2006, depends on how Clinton handles Afghanistan. I seriously doubt he would go into Iraq. There may be no economic collapse in 2008 with a different administration in power.

A different president in 1992 really is going to change up the entire history of al Qaeda. I'm not sure you can really assume much about the 90s and 00s with an Inoyue presidency, at least as far as foreign affairs are concerned.

[chessfiend]

Originally Posted by Mikey

A different president in 1992 really is going to change up the entire history of al Qaeda. I'm not sure you can really assume much about the 90s and 00s with an Inoyue presidency, at least as far as foreign affairs are concerned.

I am not sure how much would be different. I think Bin Laden would still go after US in this timeline because the Gulf War would still happen. As to the severity of what he may try, I am not sure what would happen. Do not know what a President Inouye Foreign Policy would look like.

[Wendell]

Originally Posted by Plumber

It's easy, really. Gore almost won in 2000. VP Clinton would wipe the floor with Dubya. Add a butterfly net, and 9/11 makes Clinton a war president who gets reelected in 2004.

You can't know that.

Originally Posted by chessfiend

butterflies....there may be no war fatigue in 2006, depends on how Clinton handles Afghanistan. I seriously doubt he would go into Iraq. There may be no economic collapse in 2008 with a different administration in power.

The roots of the recession go back atleast to the nineties.

[Plumber]

Originally Posted by Wendell

You can't know that.

Which is why I said add a butterfly net.

How good is Inouye as a campaigner though? That's essential for elections nowadays.

[Wendell]

Originally Posted by Plumber

Which is why I said add a butterfly net.

How good is Inouye as a campaigner though? That's essential for elections nowadays.

The butterfly net would be applicable as soon as you made Bush the GOP nominee in 2000.

[chessfiend]

one final bump just to see if any new ideas are out there

[ColeMercury]

Just had a thought -- do you think the Republicans might pit McCain against Inouye in 1996? Make it a "war hero vs war hero" thing to neutralise that.

Originally Posted by Wendell

While an Inouye presidency seems possible, it's not going to usurp the trend away from Republican administrations since 1968

Oh, come on, you can impose any damn "pattern" on presidential administrations so long as you pick the right starting point. For instance, beginning in 1933 there was 12 years of anomalous Democratic dominance (Roosevelt '33-'45), followed by over 30 years of an "each party gets two terms" pattern (Truman '45-'53, Eisenhower '53-'61, Kennedy/Johnson '61-'69, Nixon/Ford '69-'77, then finally broken by Carter '77-'81) followed by an anomalous 12 years of Republican dominance (Reagan/Bush '81-'93), and then back to an "each party gets two terms" pattern again (Clinton '93-'01, Bush jr '01-'09, Obama '09-'1?).

It's meaningless. People will vote for who they vote for based on the circumstances of the time, not because of the frickin' patterns of history.