Alternate Wikipedia Infoboxes VI (Do Not Post Current Politics or Political Figures Here)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Part 2


al92.JPG

al92map.JPG


The 1992 United States presidential election was the 52nd quadrennial presidential election, held on Tuesday, November 3rd, 1992. Incumbent Democratic President Al Gore defeated Republican Former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole of Kansas and Texas businessman Ross Perot in one of the closest elections in American history. President Gore's chances of re-election were hampered when the Democrats took losses in the 1990 midterm elections due to a Southern and Midwestern backlash against the President for "governing left of his campaign policies" and not addressing the Midwest farm crisis.

However the President managed to put himself back on the map with his swift reaction to Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait in 1991, with Operation Desert Storm seeing Iraqi forces be pushed from the country entirely in only 30 days. At the dawn of 1992 it was obvious Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole of Kansas would be the Republican nominee, defeating challenges from both Pat Buchanan and Steve Forbes. He resigned from the Senate to focus on his campaign against the President.

Dole took Indiana Senator Richard Lugar as his running mate, hoping his rust belt credentials would be helpful to sway the region that had become disillusioned with President Gore's American Free Trade Compact or AFTC. (Even though Dole also supported the agreement)

Gore and Dole weren't alone however, as Texas billionaire Ross Perot also entered the race on a campaign against President Gore as an independent candidate, opposing free trade and taking a middle ground approach to social issues. Initially Perot led both candidates in the polls before suddenly dropping from the race and re-entering. The economic crisis continued to worsen and many thought for sure Dole would be swearing in January 1993.

By the fall the Gore campaign was playing catchup as fast as possible. To prove his credentials on social issues President Gore outlawed same-sex marriage in the Defense of Marriage Act and spoke out in favor of a moment of silence in schools for prayer.

Gore also triumphed in the third Presidential Debate, with Dole looking visibly confused at different points, leading voters to question his ability at his age. On the day before election day the polls showed the two candidates neck and neck.

On November 3rd President Gore narrowly won re-election in one of the closest races in the history of the United States. The state of Arkansas, a state many expected Dole to win as he swept the rest of the south, went to President Gore by a measly 1,2000 votes, mostly in part thanks to the charismatic Governor Bill Clinton campaigning in favor of the President. If the state had gone to Bob Dole it would've resulted in a hung Electoral College, which would've meant a Dole victory due to GOP control of both houses.

Many Republicans blamed Ross Perot for Dole's defeat, however most Perot voters preferred Gore or no vote over Dole in a race without the independent candidate. Dole also came in third place behind Perot and Gore in the state of Maine that Perot had won, so if Perot had not been in the race the state would've gone to Gore.

The election was the fourth in history in which the winning candidate did not win the popular vote nationwide, with Dole defeating the President in the popular vote by .2%. President Gore and Vice President Glenn were sworn into their second term on January 20th, 1993.
 
Happy Families
What if Charles and Diana had a happy marriage?
By @Britannia238
—————-—————-—————-—————-—————-—————-—————-—————-—————-—————-—————-—————-—————-—————-—————-—————-—————-—————-——

12F05B1E-C4A7-4F1D-96A5-82EEC7738119.jpeg

In the early hours of 31 August 1997, Charles, Prince of Wales Diana, Princess of Wales and their children, Princes William and Harry died from the injuries she sustained in a car crash in the Pont de l'Alma tunnel in Paris. Charles and Harry, were pronounced dead at the scene. Their bodyguard, Trevor Rees-Jones, who was seriously injured, survived the crash.

Some media claimed the erratic behaviour of paparazzi following the car, as reported by the BBC, had contributed to the crash. In 1999, a French investigation found that Paul, who lost control of the vehicle at high speed while intoxicated by alcohol and under the effects of prescription drugs, was solely responsible for the crash. He was the deputy head of security at the Hôtel Ritz and had earlier goaded paparazzi waiting for Diana and Charles outside the hotel. Anti-depressants and traces of an anti-psychotic in his blood may have worsened Paul's inebriation. In 2008, the jury at a British inquest returned a verdict of unlawful killing through grossly negligent driving by Paul and the following paparazzi vehicles. This same result was found in 2017.
———-—————-—————-—————-—————-—————-————————-—————-—————-—————-—————-—————-————————-———-
15E15CB3-F0A7-4C31-8F7A-3B570EDEEC6D.jpeg

B48DE437-FE5A-499C-A047-95FC91606346.jpeg

59A3531B-0C90-476C-9981-E7F5F6CA55DA.jpeg
 
Happy Families
What if Charles and Diana had a happy marriage?
By @Britannia238
—————-—————-—————-—————-—————-—————-—————-—————-—————-—————-—————-—————-—————-—————-—————-—————-—————-—————-——

View attachment 668835

In the early hours of 31 August 1997, Charles, Prince of Wales Diana, Princess of Wales and their children, Princes William and Harry died from the injuries she sustained in a car crash in the Pont de l'Alma tunnel in Paris. Charles and Harry, were pronounced dead at the scene. Their bodyguard, Trevor Rees-Jones, who was seriously injured, survived the crash.

Some media claimed the erratic behaviour of paparazzi following the car, as reported by the BBC, had contributed to the crash. In 1999, a French investigation found that Paul, who lost control of the vehicle at high speed while intoxicated by alcohol and under the effects of prescription drugs, was solely responsible for the crash. He was the deputy head of security at the Hôtel Ritz and had earlier goaded paparazzi waiting for Diana and Charles outside the hotel. Anti-depressants and traces of an anti-psychotic in his blood may have worsened Paul's inebriation. In 2008, the jury at a British inquest returned a verdict of unlawful killing through grossly negligent driving by Paul and the following paparazzi vehicles. This same result was found in 2017.
———-—————-—————-—————-—————-—————-————————-—————-—————-—————-—————-—————-————————-———-
View attachment 668836
View attachment 668837
View attachment 668838
The most unrealistic part of this is Elizabeth II dying in 2014.
 
Also with Queen Elizabeth II passing away and Harry/William, would the monarchy possibly be abolished due to a stronger anti-monarchy movement?

In UK? I doubt it. Outside of it? Yeah I imagine more of the Commonwealth Realms than OTL might have become republics (especially in response to whatever scandal it was that made Andrew abdicate).
 
The most unrealistic part of this is Elizabeth II dying in 2014.
Maybe, it was just the added stress afterwards would take a few years off and narratively allow Andrew to become King.

Any reason why Andrew chose not adopt a regnal name?
He’d probably just not confuse things. Realistically he’s probably to proud to do so and to me sounds better than Edward IX.

Also with Queen Elizabeth II passing away and Harry/William, would the monarchy possibly be abolished due to a stronger anti-monarchy movement?
There are certainly stronger talks of it. Labour are having to give a non answer to the issue of a Republican Referendum, whilst at times the Lib Dems back it.

Also what happened in 2019 for him not to be King still?
Possibly the Epstein controversy
Spot on. He still denies the claims but the coverage is much higher ITTL and so he ”doesn’t feel like he can carry on as king given circumstances“.
 
On the 15th August 2000, two months after Murayama won re-election as Prime Minister, the 55th anniversary of the end of the Second World War arrived. After the unsatisfactory statement Kaifu had given in 1995 had offended not only many people in China and Korea, but also their then-Presidents Jiang Zemin and Kim Young-sam, Murayama was determined to use the opportunity to give a statement which would alleviate this problem.

While it is not wholly accurate to describe the resultant Murayama Statement as the first step in Japan’s recognition of and apologies for its past atrocities- the Kono Statement in 1993, which marked the first time the coercive use of ‘comfort women’ by the Japanese Imperial Army during WWII was acknowledged by the Japanese government, preceded it- the Murayama Statement was the first to actively condemn Japanese imperialism, as well as condemning ‘self-righteous nationalism’ and advocating global disarmament, with its Self-Defence Forces and Article 9 of its Constitution promoted as showing the country could be a role model for this going forward.

The statement was, and remains, deeply divisive in Japanese politics. Many on the right felt it was far too apologetic, and while most on the left were satisfied with its sentiments they felt it was at risk of renouncement by a future LDP government and expected Murayama and the JSP to follow through on it. This they tried to do through the creation of the Comfort Women’s Fund, which sought to pay reparations to the families of victims of the Imperial Army’s abductions and abuse in China and Korea. Ironically, one figure who did not take the statement well was Doi, who claimed the fund was a waste of money and comfort womens’ families needed to ‘get over it’. However, the main impact of this was undermining Doi’s reputation and somewhat bolstering Murayama’s with the left.

After Mori’s disappointing performance in 2000, Junichiro Koizumi, whose acquiescence with much of the Murayama Statement and careful statements about the Comfort Women Fund had made him better-liked by the public again, was given another chance at the party leadership. Under his leadership, the LDP managed large gains in the 2001 House of Councillors elections, and Murayama took this as a sign it would be in the JSP’s best interest for him to bow out.

The race to succeed him drew considerable attention for the ‘new blood’ the frontrunners represented. All three of them- Health and Welfare Minister Naoto Kan, Deputy Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama and Minister of Justice Kiyomi Tsujimoto- were born after World War II, and for a while it looked like Tsujimoto, the youngest of the three at just 41, could come through the middle of her more right-wing challengers. Ultimately, though, Kan got the endorsement of the LPJ and Komeito providing the JSP with a majority, Hatoyama stood down, and fearing a vote of no confidence if Tsujimoto was elected the JSP MPs voted for Kan comfortably.

Kan’s background was in women’s rights activism and the Socialist Democratic Federation, and he was also fairly well-liked for his acknowledgement early in the second Doi government in 1997 of the Japanese government’s responsibility for the spread of HIV-tainted blood in the 1980s and for apologizing to the victims directly. This put him firmly on the centre-left of Japanese politics and thus reasserting the ideology of the JSP in government, and his unabashed support for the Murayama Statement quelled concerns from the party’s left.

His government had a fairly quiet 2002, implementing further reforms like changing the Postal Services Agency into Japan Post, a statutory corporation intended to quell right-wing advocacy for postal privatization, modest infrastructure investment and household subsidies. But as 2003 dawned and the UN-backed invasion of Iraq loomed, things got very divisive again. The JSP was able to unite itself, the parties supporting it and the JCP against the war, citing the flimsiness of the arguments for the invasion, the expense and of course the limitations of Japan’s constitution. Meanwhile, Koizumi tried to use it as an opportunity to revive the Japanese right, arguing for an abrogation of Article 9 and further funding to the Self-Defence Forces.

This didn’t really get the LDP anywhere, and the contrast between Kan attending conferences where he vocally criticized the eagerness to go to war of British Prime Minister Tony Blair and US President Mario Cuomo while Koizumi was visiting Yasakuni Shrine stood out starkly to Japanese voters- Tsujimoto even called Koizumi a ‘revisionist’.

The surge of interest made voters suspect Kan might call a general election in 2003, but he decided instead to allow more time to pass, later claiming he did so because he wished to see how Iraq played out and keep the pacifist majority was preserved for as long as possible. As it happened, the ‘Mission Accomplished’ fiasco, the capture of Saddam Hussein and the power vacuum that emerged in Iraq strengthened Kan’s hand significantly, so when he called an election in February 2004 for that March the odds looked good for him to win a second term.

1627306316712.png

(Here's the map up close for anyone who wants a better look.)
1627306347920.png
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top