Antiestablishment President before 2016 election

In the USA elections, there are a number of politicians going up against the established leaders of their respective parties. While they appear have more support than previous candidates, the phenomenon is not new. What could have happened if various antiestablishment candidates won the presidency, in any election from 1988 to 2012? Not saying whether it would be good or bad, just asking what would happen and if anything would change.
 
If I'd had Feingold win in my Kerry TL he could qualify. Or if Trump had run in 2012 he might have beaten Romney. Unlikely but it's possible. Or Jerry Brwon or Perot. Maybe McCain in 2000 would qualify.
 
1988 as the limit?

Gary Hart doesn't fool around, wins in 1988.

Edit: my apologies, things that would change:

Assuming even a mild Gary Hart win the Senate becomes 59 D - 41 R instead of 55-45.

With a large majority Hart can pass much of his platform:

Indeed, the new Democratic conventional wisdom often seems to have been built from planks in the '84 Hart platform. These include increased spending for education, coupled with greater demands on teachers; ''military reform,'' words that have come to mean being both tough and prudent on defense spending; the need to make America more competitive in the world economy; above all, a sense that it is possible for Government to attend to social needs without producing copies of New Deal and Great Society programs.

So your standard failure of neoliberal economics, alas, but mildly to the left of Bush so results will (based on all empirical evidence we have on economics) be somewhat better... especially if Hart has the balls to fire Greenspan... which he doesn't, I bet, lol. Hart is well versed on foreign policy, he'd do fine handling the end of the USSR and probably help their transition more than either Bush or Clinton: a more stable/better Russia is a decent possibility. A bigger Senate Democratic majority should produce somewhat better results than Clinton, and likely survive until 1994 ITTL as well. Perhaps military reform post-USSR collapse will actually achieve some real lasting results and savings vs OTL, at the least if say Iraq still happens the Dems will have changed their (viewed as) soft on defence position to the broader electorate.

After that well it strongly depends on a lot of things from re-election to the '96 election and outcomes (does Dole pass health care in this alternate reality? Probably not, alas) to the Fed to Iraq to Russia to potential Hart sex scandals in office... etc.
 
Last edited:
As others have said, Ross Perot and Jerry Brown come to mind in terms of the '92 election, but I don't believe Brown would have been able to attain the nomination even if he had managed to win in California and Wisconsin, the delegate numbers not being there for him.

Steve Forbes seems a possibility in regards to the '00 Republican nomination, though that would be dependent upon George Bush sitting out and most of Bush's conservative supporters electing to join Forbes' campaign. Not the most definite thing. There is also the possibility of Forbes' simply upsetting Bush in Alaska and Iowa and then later beating him out for the conservative vote, but that seems a more dangerous proposition. This isn't accounting for the fact that Forbes will be facing an uphill battle when it comes to defeating Al Gore in the general.

Donald Trump as the 2000 Reform Party nominee is also a slight possibility, though I have no idea how much pull he would have had given no poll had ever been commissioned at the time. Then again there is the possibility of him running for the '88 Republican nomination which he had considered, but I can't be sure that an outsider message would have appealed to a Republican audience at the time that wasn't evangelical.
 
. . . So your standard failure of neoliberal economics, alas, but mildly to the left of Bush so results will (based on all empirical evidence we have on economics) be somewhat better... especially if Hart has the balls to fire Greenspan . . .
Hart was a leader open to new ideas, and who liked his own new ideas. This last part makes it tricky, but all the same I wonder if he could combine this with an FDR experimentalist approach?
 
Hart was a leader open to new ideas, and who liked his own new ideas. This last part makes it tricky, but all the same I wonder if he could combine this with an FDR experimentalist approach?

I'd buy that, but I think he'd have to follow a Democratic President (say post-Ford win, some-D 1981-1989) to switch his views. Reagan or another Republican along with Carter's failure wouldn't change Hart's mind, although perhaps say Church '76 having much more success despite still being beaten by Reagan because of larger circumstances would give Hart a base to expand on.

However based on his internet writing (last decade or so) he absolutely considered the Democratic switch to centrism and no New Deal-level ideas a huge failing. So yes, under the right circumstance's Hart is pretty darn ideal to carry through excellent policies if he can be switched to that sort of policy.

(And check your PMs)
 
Top