So how do you think a President Cuomo, elected by a narrow margin in 1988, would've handled this?
AHC: Cuomo vs Bush in 1988
- Thread starter Amadeus
- Start date
So how do you think a President Cuomo, elected by a narrow margin in 1988, would've handled this?
I think it’s been a good discussion and hope it continues. And I like threads which interweave two or more topics, as I tend to learn more. 
IMO if Cuomo is re-elected, then his margin of victory would be similar to Clinton's in 1996. Even if he leads the country to war in the Persian Gulf. Cuomo probably picks up a couple of states he narrowly lost in 1988 but unlike Clinton he wins a majority in the popular vote without Ross Perot running as an independent. (Without Bush, I think Perot - if he runs at all - would run in the 1992 Republican primaries instead of standing as an independent). Democrats make some minor gains in the House and Senate.
I think Cuomo could talk slowly and calmly that corporations are not showing loyalty to their employees, for all the good that would do.
I think he could also talk about, why would we tax capital gains at lower favorable rates? (a perennially favorite idea among Republicans, I think re-introduced to the tax code during Bush, Sr.’s term from ‘89 to ‘93)
Last edited:
Maybe, but actions mean a lot more than words. He'd have to show decisiveness in turning the economy around and improving the lives of everyday people. Unfortunately, Cuomo was about the opposite of decisive when it came to higher office - even if he was a very accomplished Governor of New York who had a powerful way of speaking to working class anxieties.
Pres. Clinton signed the Family and Medical Leave Act on Feb. 5, 1993, as the first legislation he signed.
It was surprisingly popular for a relatively small reform. One, I think it was good legislation, and two, it was clear and straightforward. It could fit on one side of one piece of paper with space to spare, as good legislation often can (admittedly not always).
Moves like that would certainly help Cuomo going into 1992. If Bush Sr could be productive with the 1989-91 Congress, I'm sure Cuomo would be even more so.
Providing that Cuomo implements popular domestic reforms like that one, mitigates the impact of the recession (if it happens at all), handles foreign policy well, and faces Dole in 1992 he'd be on track to re-election. As for his second term; NAFTA is probably butterflied, and depending on how many Senate seats the Democrats have in 1993 Cuomo may or may not push for more ambitions domestic goals like healthcare reform. However, the Republicans are still likely to make gains in 1994 even if they don't take control of either chamber of Congress. Bush Jr is the Republican frontrunner in 1996, but his political star power would be reduced without having been the son of a President.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A191RO1Q156NBEA
GDP growth rate over time.
I'm very skeptical that a better president or better-functioning Congress can prevent recessions.
They seem periodic over (?) 7 to 10 years, vaguely, and with plenty of exceptions. But a modern economy doesn't seem to be able to go that long without what's called a "correction."
Last edited:
Ultimately it's Fed policies that have more of an effect. So if a Democratic President were to replace Greenspan, the result would possibly be lower interest rates in the early 1990s. Which wouldn't prevent the recession, but it would be that much less severe for at least a certain number of Americans. At the very least the US would enter a technical recession in 1990.
Here’s how I think Cuomo would do in 1988:
1988
Gov. Mario Cuomo (D-NY)/Sen. Lloyd Bentson (D-TX) - 292 EV
Vice Pres. George Bush (R-TX)/Sen. Dan Quayle (R-IN) - 246 EV
In terms of the electoral college, that's the narrowest margin since 1916. But it wouldn't be too surprising if that were the result. Cuomo would be starting out with a large lead, but his position on the death penalty, Atwater's smear campaign (which would probably employ xenophobic attacks on Cuomo's Italian-American heritage), and Reagan's own popularity would narrow the race quite a bit. Bush Sr's political legacy would be seen quite differently had he lost: instead of being praised for a comeback victory and his leadership on foreign policy, Bush would be blamed for a negative race-baiting campaign which featured the single worst Vice-Presidential pick since Thomas Eagleton.
Bomster
Banned
What would Cuomo’s first term look like? How would he handle the fall of the Iron Curtain? The end of the Cold War? The Gulf War? And could the same issues that dogged Bush’s re-election campaign dog Cuomo’s in 1992?
Foreign policy wouldn't look that much differently from Bush. Like Bush, Cuomo's hand would be forced in Panama. But the Persian Gulf is more interesting. Cuomo might change US policy to be less favorable to Hussein, but whether or not that would deter actually Hussein from invading Kuwait is doubtful. (Hussein was in debt from the war with Iran, Iraq had a longtime border dispute with Kuwait, Hussein wanted the oil there, etc). I do imagine however that events from 1989-1991 would play out somewhat differently with Cuomo in charge. If Cuomo does go to war and he gets the amazing popularity boost that Bush enjoyed in 1991, then the GOP would be just as scared as the Democrats were in OTL and Dole is the likely nominee in 1992. However the economy would provide Cuomo with problems and this helps Dole. If Cuomo effectively works to tackle domestic issues and the economy has demonstrably recovered by election day, then he could beat Dole.
NAFTA negotiations probably go differently with pro-union Cuomo and likely no Perot candidacy.
In honor of Bush's passing, I'll carry over the post I made in @President_Lincoln's timeline "Blue Skies in Camelot":
I'm no conservative nor a Republican, but there's no doubt that Bush Sr was a true statesman who commanded respect and power on the world stage - and was willing to compromise for the sake of the economy and the country when he raised taxes. He wasn't perfect (remember Clarence Thomas?), but history has largely proved him right while his son's presidency remains a cautionary tale. RIP.
I'm no conservative nor a Republican, but there's no doubt that Bush Sr was a true statesman who commanded respect and power on the world stage - and was willing to compromise for the sake of the economy and the country when he raised taxes. He wasn't perfect (remember Clarence Thomas?), but history has largely proved him right while his son's presidency remains a cautionary tale. RIP.
Here’s how I think Cuomo would do in 1988:
1988
Gov. Mario Cuomo (D-NY)/Sen. Lloyd Bentson (D-TX) - 292 EV
Vice Pres. George Bush (R-TX)/Sen. Dan Quayle (R-IN) - 246 EV
How about a 269-269 tie? Cuomo carries all the states you have in red except Ohio--which after all in OTL went for Bush by 10.85 points, considerably more than his 7.8 point national average?
(I also rather doubt that Cuomo would carry either congressional district in ME--in OTL Bush carried the 1st by 56-43 and the 2nd by 55-45 according to CQ's Politics in America 1990. It may seem strange to see the coastal 1st District more Republican than the rural 2nd, but remember that Kennebunkport was Bush's summer home. But for the fun of producing a tie, I'll assume Cuomo carries one of them, as well as Delaware which went for Bush in OTL by 12.4 points. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Delaware,_1988 Incidentally, due to farmer discontent with the GOP in 1988, it's actually more plausible to have Cuomo carry SD than some states you have him carry! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_South_Dakota,_1988)
In that case the race goes into the House, with each state, large or small, having one vote. I assume that it's the new House that decides, and the Democrats there in OTL controlled the delegations of AL, AR, CA, DE, GA, IL, IN, KY, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, NJ, NY, NC, ND, OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, WA, WV, and WI--28 delegations, enough to win. Moreover, if Cuomo does that much better than Dukakis, presumably there will be more Democratic delegations. (OTOH, can we be sure that every conservative southern Democrat from a district Bush carried will vote for Cuomo?)
Bomster
Banned
How about this then? I had Montana vote for Cuomo instead of ME-1 and Delaware to tie the electoral count, South Dakota would be equally as close:
Vice Pres. George H.W. Bush (R-TX)/Sen. Dan Quayle (R-IN) - 269 EV
Gov. Mario Cuomo (D-NY)/Sen. Lloyd Bentson (D-TX) - 269 EV
How about this then? I had Montana vote for Cuomo instead of ME-1 and Delaware to tie the electoral count, South Dakota would be equally as close:
Vice Pres. George H.W. Bush (R-TX)/Sen. Dan Quayle (R-IN) - 269 EV
Gov. Mario Cuomo (D-NY)/Sen. Lloyd Bentson (D-TX) - 269 EV
Any person elected in the House would, like John Quincy Adams, lack a real mandate to govern outside of foreign affairs. He'd have to wait until the second term to make any bold moves on domestic issues. This more or less is what JFK did after his narrow victory in 1960: focus on foreign affairs in the first term, leave domestic issues to the second term - with civil rights being the exception.
@GeographyDude Here is an article you might find interesting:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/12/1/14313522/george-h-w-bush-dies
Essentially it blames Bush's 1992 defeat on the Fed, which in 1989 decided to take deflationary measures that caused a recession in 1990. Your thoughts?
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/12/1/14313522/george-h-w-bush-dies
Essentially it blames Bush's 1992 defeat on the Fed, which in 1989 decided to take deflationary measures that caused a recession in 1990. Your thoughts?
Kennedy's problem in getting major domestic programs through wasn't that he felt his victory was too narrow for him to press for them. In many cases he did press for them--but didn't have the votes in Congress, due to the strength of the Republican/southern Democratic conservative coalition. Even apart from ultimately pressing for civil rights legislation, he did have a fairly ambitious domestic agenda, including Medicare (which failed 52-48 in the Senate in 1962). https://webcache.googleusercontent....p?id=cqal62-1326016+&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us It was also JFK who first proposed the tax cut LBJ ultimately got though Congress in 1964. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1964 JFK did not have a strategy of neglecting domestic issues--though of course he did at first want to defer one as explosive as civil rights. It's just that he didn't have the votes in Congress.