Apparently people are obsessed with arms.
Especially if they belong to bears.
Apparently people are obsessed with arms.
Perot actually increases his vote share? Nice!The Other Southerner
'92 was supposed to be the year the Democrats took back the White House. Then, of course, their golden boy turned out to be a serial cheater and occasional indecent assaulter. The public divorce didn't help. Nor did the news that his VP pick apparently killed a load of innocents in 'nam. Yes, unfortunately, this would be another one for ol' Pappy.
Of course, as his primary opponent pointed out, Bush wasn't exactly telling the truth when he asked America to read his lips. Well, that and the World Trade Center bombing. The blame for the dire situations economically and strategically were pinned on the incumbent administration. Voters wanted something new, damned where it came from. Which is why it was a surprise to many that a small-town mayor and a former U.N. ambassador shot ahead of the competition.
The first African-American president? The first female Vice President? A floating GDP? It was all too great for many to believe, which was why it came as a sizeable shock when Richards collapsed while walking the halls of congress. After she was laid in state, Young found another comparable outsider, a Minnesota State Auditor busy filling a vacant House seat, to take her place, intending on grooming the 'new democrat' for higher office. Even without the sympathy vote, '96 would've been a cinch, considering the competition.
Some people even wondered why the GOP bothered trying to find a palpable candidate in '04. The days of Reagan and the sixteen unbroken years of Republican rule were gone. America had entered the new progressive age.
-snip-
Seeing as how Quayle was the nominee in '96, I wouldn't be surprised if more moderates swung Perot's way.Perot actually increases his vote share? Nice!
Well Young was all for human rights, accessible education and helping the poor. Coupled with Wellstone's disdain for big business and support for things like environmental regulation and labour unions, and both being determinedly anti-war, I think America would be pretty damn well off, all things considered.Andrew Young is such a fascinating figure. What would he and Wellstone accomplish together as Presidents?
Seeing as how Quayle was the nominee in '96, I wouldn't be surprised if more moderates swung Perot's way.
Well Young was all for human rights, accessible education and helping the poor. Coupled with Wellstone's disdain for big business and support for things like environmental regulation and labour unions, and both being determinedly anti-war, I think America would be pretty damn well off, all things considered.
Due to shenanigans, Bush's campaign managers pretty much obliterate any criticism by pointing out Clinton's foibles and Perot's earlier dropping out. By election day he comes off as the candidate of establishment and stability. However, by '96, a lot of that goodwill has dissipated, all but tainting Quayle's candidacy.But why did Perot do worse then OTL? If Kerrey was the running mate, wouldn't Perot have won more votes then in OTL 1992, maybe even winning Maine or Alaska?
Oh yeah, no doubt. But congress can fluctuate with each midterm elections -- I'm pretty sure the dems surged in '92, then lost out in '96 with all the impeachment talk. Voters would no doubt filter out middle-road or problematic candidates with more agreeable ones.But could they accomplish anything? Or would they be stonewalled by an intransigent Republican Congress, and held back by the neoliberal democrats?
Thande had something like this on Sea Lion Press Forum - that's members only, but I can give you the link if you're a member.I've been looking at a conversion of Canadian Federal Elections to American Presidential Elections for a while now, but in wanting to do it right and a handful more detail I wanted to account for results on the State level rather than just establish swings at the National level. That then raised the question of what groupings of American States would best represent their equivalent Canadian Province, and honestly I'm struggling to make the connections. I'm sure this question has been asked before, but I wasn't able to find anything myself on the board or elsewhere, least in my line of questioning. At the moment I'd organized them as the following.
For some reason Atlas has gone down as I'm typing this, so hopefully it will return to working order soon. New England in Red I opted to substitute the Atlantic Provinces, the Old Confederacy and Oklahoma I substituted for Quebec, those States in Green I substituted for Ontario, the Pacific Coast and Hawaii I substituted for British Columbia, everything in Red formed an amalgamation of the Prairie Provinces (I couldn't convince myself of an optimal way to divide them into three components), and Alaska would represent Yukon and Nunavut.
At various times I moved or considered moving States between the current groupings, these being New York, Kentucky, West Virginia, Illinois, Wisconsin, Oklahoma and Nevada.
Is there anything I should change?
Edit: In case it is still not showing up, I've taken the hyperlink for the Atlas map and put it in the spoiler below. If you click it, it should show the map that way.
Thande had something like this on Sea Lion Press Forum - that's members only, but I can give you the link if you're a member.