Well I'm not sure if everyone remembers, but in the 2008 Presidential primaries Giuliani ran and had a semi successful bout for a minute there. So the AHC is, with any POD you can think of, have Giuliani get elected President.
AHC: President Rudy Giuliani
- Thread starter Enigmajones
- Start date
He would have more luck as a Democrat than as a Republican. His views on abortion, guns, and immigration made him unelectable in the GOP primaries. Maybe in 2008, he could have run as a Democrat on a platform of prosecuting Cheney and Rumsfeld for war crimes?
He was the Republican frontrunner for most of 2007; he just ran an inept campaign. And while he would have done poorly with evangelical voters regardless, it's easy to see him running a better campaign and then winning the nomination with a similar path to John McCain (win NH/FL, win the most of the big states while Huckabee storms the South and Romney takes some Western states). That being said, a better scenario might be Gore being elected, 9/11 happening as OTL, and then Rudy winning the nomination from there.
I can see how, by avoiding a lot of mistakes he made in OTL, he might have become the GOP nominee.. What I can't see is the GOP winning the presidency in 2008 in the face of the biggest financial meltdown since the Great Depression.
It's unlikely, simply for the fact that Giuliani adds nothing for McCain in an electoral sense. McCain already had a problem convincing the Evangelical right about his credentials, hence a big factor in Palin's selection, but also for the fact that he tried choosing Lieberman and this went down badly. I can't see how choosing Giuliani as VP doesn't bring about the same concerns (minus the Dem affiliation) that the Evangelicals had about Lieberman but also McCain. McCain needed a socially right VP.
First of all, the poor showing of Giuliani in the primaries is evidence that he would not add much popular support to the GOP ticket--which by the way is also the case for vice-presidential candidates in general--saying "nobody votes for the veep" is not exactly true but it's pretty close to the truth. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2000/06/nobody-votes-for-the-veep.html Some political scientists have argued that except for small states the VP candidate doesn't even help the ticket in his or her own state!
Second, the Republicans aren't going to win in 2008 whether they face Obama or HRC. Yes, she lost in 2016. The circumstances in 2008 were vastly different from those of 2008. For one thing, the difficulty of a party winning a third consecutive term in the White House, which hurt the Democrats in 29016 would hurt the Republicans in 2008. Much, much more important is of course the fact that under a GOP administration, the US was undergoing its worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. You might as well say "Al Smith lost to Hoover by seventeen points in 1928, therefore he would have lost to him by seventeen points in 1932."
As a matter of fact, since the ACW there is not a single instance of the party in the White House retaining power when the presidential election was held during a recession except 1876 when the circumstances were to say the least irregular (and even in 1876 the economy had improved somewhat from 1873-75).
9/11 happens in late 1998 or early 1999. Rudy handles the crisis well, and the DC Republicans are politically radioactive because they distracted Clinton with impeachment over an extramarital affair. Rudy is seen as one of the few with a chance to win in 2000.
McCain's problem was not the Evangelicals. It was the economic meltdown--period.
It was only 9/11 that made Giuliani even plausible as a a presidential candidate for Republicans--otherwise his stances on abortion and gun control would be fatal in a GOP primary (as indeed they--among other things--were even in 2008). Not to mention that just three years as mayor of New York would be considered inadequate experience. And in 1996 Bush had only two years as governor of Texas, and his father's poor showing in 1992 (and still fairly fresh memories of the 1991-2 recession) did not exactly make his family name magical among national Republicans.
The most plausible scenario is Cheney dying of a heart attack after 9/11 and GW Bush choosing Giuliani to replace him, then Bush being killed in office after his 2004 re-election. Around 2002-4 Giuliani was such a national hero that even Republicans who disagreed with him strongly on issues like abortion would not object to his being on the ticket...
Gore elected 2000, Rudy in 2004 with 9/11 not avoided seems most likely. By 2008 he was already circling the drain with hucksters and bad political actors. With a Gore 2004, winds are probably against him and Giuliani is still kinda in that sweet spot of national respect still, second divorce not withstanding.
Nazi Space Spy
Banned
The biggest discernible difference for me personally is that I’d be able to say I met a POTUS eight/nine years earlier than I did in OTL. My grandma took me to see Rudy at a campaign stop in ‘07. Years later in 2015 I got to meet Trump.
Not when he was picking a VP it wasn't, his problem was convincing the base he was sufficiently socially conservative enough.
Giuliani worsened McCain's credentials amongst the social conservatives and added nothing else - wouldn't have helped the Republicans win New York, added nothing to McCain's national security credentials and was another white guy when the Republicans needed some diversity against the first black presidential nominee.
I was trying to explain why contra https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/ahc-president-rudy-giuliani.477192/#post-19668159 a McCain-Giuliani ticket was unlikely to win (whether the Democrats nominated Obama or HRC), not why McCain was unlikely to choose him (which I agree was unlikely).
However, I think the economy was relevant even to McCain's choice a of a running mate. It wasn't as bad as it would be after the fall of Lehman Brothers but it was already bad and recognized by voters as such--which is a major reason why Obama led in most polls (except for the predictable GOP convention bounce). That being so, McCain felt he could not choose a conventional running mate like Romney but had to try something unusual to shake up the race. He would have preferred that this be by choosing Lieberman but there was just too much of a revolt from conservatives (not just Evangelicals).