AHC: Republican rule from 1981 until 2005

The challenge, would you choose to accept it, is to allow the GOP to control the White House until January 20, 2005, with a POD no earlier than April 15, 1989. The closest thing I get is the 20-year-Republican rule in DSS's Years of Flames: A Timeline. You can have the Republican nominee in 2000 losing the popular vote, as well as severe splits in both parties. Moderate Republicans could also control the GOP. Terrorist attacks, assassinations and tragic deaths of presidents or mainstream politicians allowed, but no insane nuclear war. Bonus if the GOP briefly retakes the House in TTL, though double bonus if Democrats have over 300 House and 70 Senate seats in 2005.

How would this world look like in 2012?
 
Well if the economy is better than George HW will defeat Clinton.

Then if the economy stays good in the 90s as OTL I don´t see why they wouldn´t win the next elections as well.

In the meanwhile the democrats by being out of power for such a long time radicalise making them put up a hopeless candidate in the 2000 elections.
 
In the meanwhile the democrats by being out of power for such a long time radicalise making them put up a hopeless candidate in the 2000 elections.

Just like how Labour united under Tony Blair and his radical, out of touch "New Labour" in the mid 90s after spending almost 20 years in opposition? Or the GOP in 1952 run with Eisenhower after two decades of Roosevelt and Truman? Oh, wait...
 

JoeMulk

Banned
Just like how Labour united under Tony Blair and his radical, out of touch "New Labour" in the mid 90s after spending almost 20 years in opposition? Or the GOP in 1952 run with Eisenhower after two decades of Roosevelt and Truman? Oh, wait...

Well they almost ran Taft in 52.
 
Just like how Labour united under Tony Blair and his radical, out of touch "New Labour" in the mid 90s after spending almost 20 years in opposition? Or the GOP in 1952 run with Eisenhower after two decades of Roosevelt and Truman? Oh, wait...

More like swinging back and forth from radical to ineffective.

If Clinton runs 92 and loses those on the left will say that this shows that third way isn´t really working and instead of being centrists they should go more to the left.

Well, like you point out history hasn´t really been that way. 20 years out of rule mildens rather than strengthens conviction.
 
I would think the first place to start would be to butterfly away Ross Perot in 1992, at which point it would be possible for Bush '92 to squeak by in much the same way that his son would win re-election 12 years later.

A second Bush term would probably involve less technology infrastructure spending (i.e., the Internet), and certainly less focus on the deficit without Perot's candidacy. Despite that, voters are (probably) going to credit the President with turning around the economy.

1996 is going to be an interesting year for the both parties. The Democrats will be in serious disarray: on the one hand, the centrist DLC group is going to be humbled (because they got their chance in 1992 and lost with Clinton); on the other hand, Clinton-Gore will have done far better than Dukakis and Mondale, validating the DLC argument to some extent. My guess is that Gore is probably the DLC candidate of choice here.

Mario Cuomo almost certainly runs in 1996 and is the front-runner.

Bob Kerrey (Nebraska) may fare well as Democrats scour the country in search of an electoral map path to victory.

My guess is that you get a Cuomo-Graham ticket in 1992 -- and to be honest, that's going to be very difficult for the Republicans to beat, particularly given that their stable of candidates ITTL is going to be led by Dan Quayle, Pat Buchanan, Jack Kemp and Bob Dole.
 
Top