OOC: It’s your call. It’s your timeline. However, I do think either Harris or Warren would be on the ticket in 2020.

OOC: Well, I'm the OP but I want everyone to contribute. You've made a lot of important contributions, for instance, and I appreciate that.

DBWI: Biden ran a spirited race in 2016 against Romney. He still has a following with the Democratic base, but at his age I don't think he'll make another go at the White House. And no candidate has lost the presidency only to be nominated again since Richard Nixon. It looks like Sanders is the early frontrunner for 2020, but IMO Harris is more electable nationally. Some say incoming Senator O'Rourke of Texas is presidential material, but he ruled out a White House run during the midterms. Maybe he could be VP.
 
OOC: Well, I'm the OP but I want everyone to contribute. You've made a lot of important contributions, for instance, and I appreciate that.

DBWI: Biden ran a spirited race in 2016 against Romney. He still has a following with the Democratic base, but at his age I don't think he'll make another go at the White House. And no candidate has lost the presidency only to be nominated again since Richard Nixon. It looks like Sanders is the early frontrunner for 2020, but IMO Harris is more electable nationally. Some say incoming Senator O'Rourke of Texas is presidential material, but he ruled out a White House run during the midterms. Maybe he could be VP.

OOC: Thanks! It’s the least I can do given the fact that you contributed a lot to my own DBWI timeline where Bush gets a second term.

I don’t think O’Rourke will be a candidate. I feel it would upset a lot of people if he outright ran for the Presidency a few months after being elected as Senator. It would almost seem like a slap in the face to everyone who voted to represent them for a six year term.

Sanders still has a huge following despite his loss. He really rallied the progressive base of the Democratic Party around his cause. If he doesn’t run, I could see him getting behind Harris.

Speaking of O’Rourke, I’m still shocked at his upset. His victory was the biggest, bar none, of the entire midterms, Senate, House, or Governor elections alike.
 
I don’t think O’Rourke will be a candidate. I feel it would upset a lot of people if he outright ran for the Presidency a few months after being elected as Senator. It would almost seem like a slap in the face to everyone who voted to represent them for a six year term.

Absolutely.

Speaking of O’Rourke, I’m still shocked at his upset. His victory was the biggest, bar none, of the entire midterms, Senate, House, or Governor elections alike.

I agree. Never in a million years did I expect him to beat Cruz, and yet he did by .5%. Ironically this helps Vice-President Jindal, since Crux was widely expected to challenge him for the 2020 nomination.
 
So far this thread has talked a lot about post-2000 politics, but what do people think about Cuomo's Presidency? I think he did a pretty good job overall: he rejuvenated the stagnating 1990s economy by lowering interest rates and passing a Keynesian stimulus, intervened in Rwanda to stop the genocide there, enacted a major healthcare reform bill in 1995, ratified the Kyoto Protocol, and lead the country to victory in the Kosovo War. However, due to the high levels of federal spending in the 1990s Cuomo failed to meet his goals of balancing the budget and closing up the federal deficit. Many conservatives still blame Cuomo's liberal policies for increasing our national debt, and I don't disagree. On the other hand many liberals criticize Cuomo for not doing enough to address gay rights issues, which he generally avoided as President. Regardless of what one thinks of his policies, Cuomo will always have the distinction of being our nation's first Italian-American President.
 
I agree. Never in a million years did I expect him to beat Cruz, and yet he did by .5%. Ironically this helps Vice-President Jindal, since Crux was widely expected to challenge him for the 2020 nomination.

I didn’t know that. Maybe Beto defeating Cruz was a blessing in disguise.

So far this thread has talked a lot about post-2000 politics, but what do people think about Cuomo's Presidency? I think he did a pretty good job overall: he rejuvenated the stagnating 1990s economy by lowering interest rates and passing a Keynesian stimulus, intervened in Rwanda to stop the genocide there, enacted a major healthcare reform bill in 1995, ratified the Kyoto Protocol, and lead the country to victory in the Kosovo War. However, due to the high levels of federal spending in the 1990s Cuomo failed to meet his goals of balancing the budget and closing up the federal deficit. Many conservatives still blame Cuomo's liberal policies for increasing our national debt, and I don't disagree. On the other hand many liberals criticize Cuomo for not doing enough to address gay rights issues, which he generally avoided as President. Regardless of what one thinks of his policies, Cuomo will always have the distinction of being our nation's first Italian-American President.

As an Italian American and a Roman Catholic, it’s always historic to have those demographics represented by our nation’s highest office. Also, now that I think about it, he did face a lot of criticism from both sides of the political spectrum for his presidency, but hey, if he was that unpopular, he would’ve been beaten by Dirk Kempthorne in 1996, so he was united behind in 1996 enough to win. While he wasn’t the best, he certainly was not the worst. I think he’s look upon favorably post-Presidency, given the fact that all of his successors, sans Romney, have only served single four year terms before being defeated for re-election.
 
Last edited:
I think he’s look upon favorably post-Presidency, given the fact that all of his successors, sans Romney, have only served single four year terms before being defeated for re-election.

After leaving office Cuomo wrote a study of Lincoln's leadership that was acclaimed by historians and became a bestseller. It was definitely the kind of success the Cuomo family needed following Andrew's humiliating loss to Pataki in 2002. Cuomo mostly avoided criticizing his successors and tried to stay out of the national spotlight, but he did campaign for Dems in important elections. His speech praising Obama at the 2008 DNC did much to effect the outcome of the presidential race that year. I wonder: if Clinton, Tsongas, or Bush had won in 1992 - would Obama have ever been elected?
 
How I'd rank the Presidents since 1981 from Best to Worst:

1. Mario Cuomo
2. Al Gore
3(tie). Barack Obama
3(tie). George Bush
5. John McCain
6. Ronald Reagan
7. Mitt Romney
 
How I'd rank the Presidents since 1981 from Best to Worst:

1. Mario Cuomo
2. Al Gore
3(tie). Barack Obama
3(tie). George Bush
5. John McCain
6. Ronald Reagan
7. Mitt Romney

Wow, that's pretty harsh on Romney. Why do you think he was worse than Reagan? Iran-Contra was far worse than anything Romney has done, as much as I've disagreed with many of his decisions.
 
After leaving office Cuomo wrote a study of Lincoln's leadership that was acclaimed by historians and became a bestseller. It was definitely the kind of success the Cuomo family needed following Andrew's humiliating loss to Pataki in 2002. Cuomo mostly avoided criticizing his successors and tried to stay out of the national spotlight, but he did campaign for Dems in important elections. His speech praising Obama at the 2008 DNC did much to effect the outcome of the presidential race that year. I wonder: if Clinton, Tsongas, or Bush had won in 1992 - would Obama have ever been elected?

I haven’t actually read that book, but my mother (who’s absolutely adores Mario Cuomo) has, and she tells me how the great it is. I should get around to reading it.

At least Andrew Cuomo he was able to be elected Attorney General in 2006 and then elected to Congress in 2014. It’s almost as if his bruising defeat at George Pataki’s hands in 2002 never occurred.

Cuomo was always a supporter of precedent, and his abstainment from criticizing current Presidents is a show of that. While he did so at the 2008 DNC, it was more of why Obama would make a great President, rather than a complete and total denouncement of John McCain.

To answer your question, it depends. If a Republican was elected in either 2000, or 2004, it is highly likely. The period of 2001-2009 were troublesome times for America, at home and abroad. Any party in control of the Presidency during that time was almost bound to lose it all in 2008. Obama was in the right place at the right time, so I think he would’ve been elected regardless of who was elected President in 1992.
 
Wow, that's pretty harsh on Romney. Why do you think he was worse than Reagan? Iran-Contra was far worse than anything Romney has done, as much as I've disagreed with many of his decisions.

Damn, no love for Romney?

He blew a hole in the budget with his 2013 tax cuts, more so than Reagan ever did and to Reagan's credit he tried to stop the bleeding by reversing some of those cuts (unfortunately it was lower and middle income earners that were on the receiving end of the reversal), whereas Romney won't do that under any circumstances, he undid a lot of the safeguards and regulations that Obama put in place in the midst of the financial crisis and I think we're at the brink of another recession that will be as bad as the great recession because Romney did that. He also enabled the Religious Right more so than any President including Reagan and I don't believe he believes in half of the stuff he spews to pander to them, as from a standpoint of social issues, Romney was pretty liberal as Governor of MA. As for the economy, the good numbers we've seen over the last 5 years were largely the result of the heavy lifting Obama did after the 2009 Crisis, granted one could argue Cuomo inherited a growing economy as well, but Cuomo did a lot to make the recovery/boom of the 1990s a strong and even one, where as the so called "Romney recovery" only benefited the wealthy. The poor are much worse off, the middle class is shrinking more than it has at anytime during the post war era all while the rich are getting richer. Also, some of the worst people from the McCain days made a comeback in this administration and continue to stir the pot abroad, particularly in the Middle East, and this as well as the Administration's arrogance has really hurt our image abroad. He's also not done enough on the environment for the sake of appeasing Donors and the Fossil Fuel Industry, despite the overwhelming evidence of Climate change and it's been on his watch that the GOP became the party that denies Climate Change. Honestly if the Democrats ran someone in 2016 who could've exploited the failures of the Romney Presidency, particularly in it's first two years while the GOP had both houses of Congress. and hammered on on the unevenness of the economy, they could've narrowly beaten him, but instead they ran the likable, but very gaffe prone Joe Biden who just couldn't do it and even agreed with some of the mistakes this President has made.

Reagan was terrible, but to his credit, he did work with Tip O'Neil to save Social Security and worked with Gorbachev to wind down the Cold War. Romney has none, outside of Immigration reform in 2017, and honestly had the GOP not hindered Presidents Gore and McCain's attempts to pass reform, reform might've happened sooner (and keep in mind Romney as a private citizen and as Governor of MA fought hard and spent a lot of money to stop their reform packages), and the bill that passed would've been better had provisions that House Democrats put in that would punish businesses and corporations for hiring and exploiting Illegal Immigrants not been taken out in order to get Romney on board with it.
 
As for the economy, the good numbers we've seen over the last 5 years were largely the result of the heavy lifting Obama did after the 2009 Crisis, granted one could argue Cuomo inherited a growing economy as well, but Cuomo did a lot to make the recovery/boom of the 1990s a strong and even one, where as the so called "Romney recovery" only benefited the wealthy. The poor are much worse off, the middle class is shrinking more than it has at anytime during the post war era all while the rich are getting richer.

I agree that Romney has a mixed economic record. Obama deserves the lion's share of credit for the recovery, and under Romney we've seen uneven economic growth. This is a major reason the Dems took back the Senate last year after narrowly losing control in 2012. But to give Romney credit where credit is due he did sign a minimum wage increase in 2015, which helped many many class people even if it didn't go far enough.

He's also not done enough on the environment for the sake of appeasing Donors and the Fossil Fuel Industry, despite the overwhelming evidence of Climate change and it's been on his watch that the GOP became the party that denies Climate Change.

His deregulatory efforts have been unfortunate, but to be fair Romney helped negotiate the Paris Climate Accord in 2015 and he kept Gore's cap and trade policies in place.

Honestly if the Democrats ran someone in 2016 who could've exploited the failures of the Romney Presidency, particularly in it's first two years while the GOP had both houses of Congress. and hammered on on the unevenness of the economy, they could've narrowly beaten him, but instead they ran the likable, but very gaffe prone Joe Biden who just couldn't do it and even agreed with some of the mistakes this President has made.

I'm no socialist, but IMO Sanders stood a better chance of beating Romney with his populist appeal. Given his age I'm not sure that Sanders will run again in 2020, but he will at least play the role of kingmaker in the Democratic primaries.
 
Also we gotta give Romney credit for criminal justice reform (even if it was mostly passed because of Democrats) it got rid of mandatory minimums for drug offenses, funded rehibilitaion centers, and got rid of extremely cruel prison practices.


Getting back to Cuomo I think some of his most important parts of his legacy was shifting the Overton window in key areas. I mean after because of his infrastructure funding the Democrats permanently came under the ideas of economic liberalism (and thanks to that we have high speed rails on par with Europe in Some of the country) also after columbine his gun control measures permanently shifted the dialogue on gun debate, I mean no Republican administration has been able to repeal them and every time it goes to SCOTUS they always through out the case
 
To be honest, I believe that both Romney and Obama deserve credit for making the economy the way it is today. Obama was able to begin alleviating the unstable markets from the Recession before his term ended, and personally worked with the Republican Congress to achieve this. The Dow Jones has been advancing rapidly lately. I checked it this morning and it passed 28,000.

When it comes to deregulation of environmental protections, I believe he did some of this to gain traction amongst the more conservative base of the Republican Party. However, he has also drastically reduced our dependence on foreign oil, and has denounced Saudi Arabia on multiple occasions, most notably on the murder of Jamal Khashoggi a few months ago.

And his criminal justice reform was passed with bipartisan support from both parties. In fact, the only 7 dissenting Senators were Republicans.

If I had to rank the Presidents from worst to best (7 is worst, 1 is best):

1: Mario Cuomo
2/3: Barack Obama (tied with Mitt Romney)
2/3: Mitt Romney (tied with Barack Obama)
4: Ronald Reagan
5: John McCain
6: Al Gore
7: George Bush

Granted Bush being last is by default. I think that all of these Presidents have done great things regardless of how I feel politically.
 
Last edited:
Also we gotta give Romney credit for criminal justice reform (even if it was mostly passed because of Democrats) it got rid of mandatory minimums for drug offenses, funded rehibilitaion centers, and got rid of extremely cruel prison practices.


Getting back to Cuomo I think some of his most important parts of his legacy was shifting the Overton window in key areas. I mean after because of his infrastructure funding the Democrats permanently came under the ideas of economic liberalism (and thanks to that we have high speed rails on par with Europe in Some of the country) also after columbine his gun control measures permanently shifted the dialogue on gun debate, I mean no Republican administration has been able to repeal them and every time it goes to SCOTUS they always through out the case

Cuomo's excessive 1994 crime law is another black mark on his legacy: it intensified the problem of mass incarceration and made America's criminal Justice system an international embarrassment. I commend Romney for giving the system a much needed overhaul.

But alongside universal health care, some say that Cuomo's leadership after Columbine was among his finest hours as President. The fight for gun reform was brutal, but after much wrestling with House Republicans Cuomo signed the 1999 Firearms Safety Act into law. Cuomo's bill, in addition to a 2013 expansion of the law reluctantly signed by Romney, has been credited for bringing down gun violence over the past twenty years.
 
Cuomo's excessive 1994 crime law is another black mark on his legacy: it intensified the problem of mass incarceration and made America's criminal Justice system an international embarrassment. I commend Romney for giving the system a much needed overhaul.

But alongside universal health care, some say that Cuomo's leadership after Columbine was among his finest hours as President. The fight for gun reform was brutal, but after much wrestling with House Republicans Cuomo signed the 1999 Firearms Safety Act into law. Cuomo's bill, in addition to a 2013 expansion of the law reluctantly signed by Romney, has been credited for bringing down gun violence over the past twenty years.

His hardline stance against crime was a response to his time as Governor of New York. The crime rate in New York, especially New York City, was unbelievably high during his ten years as Governor. I think his crime law was his way of rectifying his mistakes in New York. Nevertheless, it did disproportionately imprison many people for non violent offenses.

The Firearms Safety Act has long been Cuomo’s lasting legacy.
 
I believe someone already brought this up but on the international stage his leadership through the UN in preventing the Rewadan crisis from getting out of hand is on of the worlds greatest triumphs
 
I believe someone already brought this up but on the international stage his leadership through the UN in preventing the Rewadan crisis from getting out of hand is on of the worlds greatest triumphs

Cuomo is usually remembered as a domestic policy President, but his bravery in standing up to murderous tyrants in Rwanda and Kosovo is also worth mentioning. Democrats and Republicans alike applauded Cuomo's internationalist foreign policy, which also saw the United States negotiate an "agreed framework" to peace in Korea and lay the groundwork for a two state solution between Israel and Palestine. However Cuomo's critics rightfully point out that the results of these plans actually came to fruition under President Gore, who never really received credit for them. I sometimes feel bad for Gore: he accomplished a lot as President, even more than Cuomo did in certain areas like foreign policy and the environment, but he didn't have Cuomo's politcal skills and 2002 saw the Democrats lose both Houses of Congress for the first time since Eisenhower. I wonder, how would Clinton or Tsongas handled foreign policy had they won in 1992? What about Bush if he had won in an upset?
 
Last edited:
Cuomo is usually remembered as a domestic policy President, but his bravery in standing up to murderous tyrants in Rwanda and Kosovo is also worth mentioning. Democrats and Republicans alike applauded Cuomo's internationalist foreign policy, which also saw the United States negotiate an "agreed framework" to peace in Korea and lay the groundwork for a two state solution between Israel and Palestine. However Cuomo's critics rightfully point out that the results of these plans actually came to fruition under President Gore, who never really received credit for them. I sometimes feel bad for Gore: he accomplished a lot as President, even more than Cuomo did in certain areas like foreign policy and the environment, but he didn't have Cuomo's politcal skills and 2002 saw the Democrats lose both Houses of Congress for the first time since Eisenhower. I wonder, how would Clinton or Tsongas handled foreign policy had they won in 1992? What about Bush if he had won in an upset?

Cuomo was exceptional when it came to representing America on the world stage.

If Bush had won in 2000, to be honest, I think he would’ve been a bit incompetent when it came to things like foreign policy. He was seen as a bit more dull than his father, who excelled at foreign policy from years of experience.
 
Top