Challenge: Modern Grover Cleveland

Thande · Oct 9, 2012

In other words an American president who serves two non-consecutive terms. POD after the passing of the 22nd Amendment in 1951 because that makes it harder and more interesting.

This almost certainly requires a president to lose re-election and then run again later, as the only other possibility is for them to deliberately retire after one term and then make a comeback later: perhaps if they were misdiagnosed with a terminal illness?

Discuss.

mowque · Oct 9, 2012

Tough since the guy would be branded a loser, and it is tougher to come back from that in the modern era then Cleveland's (or Byran's) time.

black angel · Oct 9, 2012

I could see Bill Clinton pulling it off, but I can't really see him losing, he's just too good at campaigning, in the early 2000s he had bad heart troubles, so maybe 1995 he has a massive heart attack, steps down in favor of Gore (at lest for the 1996 election) Gore has a boring term and Democrats are always looking to Bill through the 4 years, a newly thin and healthy Bill pulls the Come Back kid in 2000 to beat the tar out of Bush II

Derek Jackson · Oct 9, 2012

Here's a thought, Nixon gets silly. He fights impeachment
He isconivicted and removed from office some time aft Jan 20 75

Ford is seen as having done very well against the dems, as he did in otl

Reagan gets more visibly scary

asupackman · Oct 9, 2012

black angel said:
I could see Bill Clinton pulling it off, but I can't really see him losing, he's just too good at campaigning, in the early 2000s he had bad heart troubles, so maybe 1995 he has a massive heart attack, steps down in favor of Gore (at lest for the 1996 election) Gore has a boring term and Democrats are always looking to Bill through the 4 years, a newly thin and healthy Bill pulls the Come Back kid in 2000 to beat the tar out of Bush II

Or have Gore replace Clinton during Clinton's second term, 2000 plays out much as it did in OTL, Bush years a little more rocky and Gore staying in the public area and running again in 2004 and winning? It's not the exact same as the Cleveland situation but its close.

Jane · Oct 9, 2012

baraks second time.

Barak obama loses, the election this fall narrowly, and try to become president again 2016, stronger than ever a possibility.

Derek Jackson · Oct 9, 2012

Jane said:
Barak obama loses, the election this fall narrowly, and try to become president again 2016, stronger than ever a possibility.

Only if democrats feel it was stolen

Jane · Oct 9, 2012

it is depending in what state the election will be won or lost, i think.

M. Adolphe Thiers · Oct 9, 2012

Derek Jackson said:
Here's a thought, Nixon gets silly. He fights impeachment
He isconivicted and removed from office some time aft Jan 20 75

Ford is seen as having done very well against the dems, as he did in otl

Reagan gets more visibly scary

Or he survives to run again! Nixon/Reagan '80! Be scared Hippie scum!

black angel · Oct 9, 2012

037771 said:
Or - since I like to go on and on about alternate versions of Nixon - you could have Gerald Ford lose by the same margin he did in 1976, only have Reagan either somehow discredited by 1980, or simply keel over. Ford '80 has a nice ring to it and it seems more likely than the previous scenario, in my humble opinion.

well Reagan really wanted Ford for his VP, he only gave up on the idea when Ford turned him down at 11PM the night before the 1980 RNC, so if Ford says yes, and in 1981 Reagan takes John Hinckley's bullets through the heart and dies and Ford again becomes an un-elected President

asupackman · Oct 9, 2012

Derek Jackson said:
Only if democrats feel it was stolen

If democrats feel this election was stolen you're going to see rioting in the streets. It's going to make 2000 Florida look like a county fair.

jack_donaghy_is_the_shado · Oct 9, 2012

TR could run in 1916; both the Progressives and the Republicans wanted him and Wilson barely won California and the election

Mikestone8 · Oct 9, 2012

jack_donaghy_is_the_shado said:
TR could run in 1916; both the Progressives and the Republicans wanted him and Wilson barely won California and the election

The Republicans certainly did not want him in 1916. They would have preferred losing to Wilson sooner than nominate him.

Now, had le followed his head rather than his heart, and not run in 1912 - -

mrsandman · Oct 9, 2012

He would need to have one the popular vote but lost the electoral vote,
Let's say Clinton dies of a heartattack in 1998,
Gore comes into office,
Gore faces off against the Republican candidate, probably Bush or McCain, winning the popular vote but losing the electoral vote like OTL
No 9/11 or wars due to butterfly's and such.
Comes back in 04' and is able to pull out a win.

BlairWitch749 · Oct 9, 2012

bush loses to kerry in 04 in EC but wins PV

iraq war goes from not going well to shit (but without surge/sunni awakening etc) and Kerry can't afford the political costs of a pullout since he campainged on winning and voted for the war

katrina otlish fuck up

economic collapse otl

bush decides to run against kerry again in 08

mostly plausible I think

Glass Onion · Oct 9, 2012

Ronald Reagan dies in an accident in 1979. The former Governor of California's death leaves the Republican 1980 primary without a clear frontrunner and leaves the conservative vote divided among several would-be successors to the Reagan mantle. Into the gap steps former President Ford who eventually wins the nomination. In the general election Ford crushes Carter in a rematch of 1976.

ColeMercury · Oct 9, 2012

Remember that Grover Cleveland won the popular vote in 1888, the election he lost to Benjamin Harrison. If that happens, it'd be fairly easy to spin away the loser stigma.

Cook · Oct 10, 2012

GOP party reform gains more momentum in the early 1900s, resulting in more delegates at the Party’s 1912 Convention having been chosen by state primaries rather than by the state party machine and party bosses. As a result Theodore Roosevelt wins the Republican nomination and subsequently the election; history remembers him as 25th and 27th President of The United States of America.

Alternatively, Roosevelt doesn’t form the Bull Moose party, preferring instead to bide his time and run in 1916; history remembers him as the 25th and 28th President.

asupackman · Oct 10, 2012

Cook said:
GOP party reform gains more momentum in the early 1900s, resulting in more delegates at the Party’s 1912 Convention having been chosen by state primaries rather than by the state party machine and party bosses. As a result Theodore Roosevelt wins the Republican nomination and subsequently the election; history remembers him as 25th and 27th President of The United States of America.

Alternatively, Roosevelt doesn’t form the Bull Moose party, preferring instead to bide his time and run in 1916; history remembers him as the 25th and 28th President.

Would an election that happened close to 100 years go be modern though? If TR is elected in 1916 that's only 20 years after Grover Cleveland left office.

Cook · Oct 10, 2012

asupackman said:
Would an election that happened close to 100 years go be modern though?

I chose the easier, pre-1951, part of the challenge.