Bush-Watts 2000?

What if George W Bush had picked GOP Conference Chair JC Watts as his running mate?

In 2000 the Republican National Convention had already been something of an immigration lovefest. This pretty much doubles down on the diversity aspect, and Watts has actual leadership in the party to complement W.
 
Election wise Watts might help Bush in some areas that Cheney didn’t, but it would still be close. The difference that Watts makes though is how the future of the GOP looks. If GOP leadership keeps up with this diversity outreach, then only good can come from it bearing in mind that the nativist elements seen today would still be in the party just weaker.

Watts is a strong candidate while he is a strong conservative on social and fiscal policy, he still opposed legislation to ban affirmative action on the federal level. Now I’m not saying the GOP would win the black vote or any other minority group, but they wouldn’t be doing as bad as they are today. Personally, I don’t see Watts having much effect on changing any of Bush’s OTL policies or decisions.

But what would be interesting to see though is come the 2008 election when Watts is running how would it affect the votes for the bank bailout since it failed in the house on its first vote. Ultimately if Republicans keep up with the outreach efforts and don’t allow the nuts to take over the party it would be a better party today.
 
Election wise Watts might help Bush in some areas that Cheney didn’t, but it would still be close. The difference that Watts makes though is how the future of the GOP looks. If GOP leadership keeps up with this diversity outreach, then only good can come from it bearing in mind that the nativist elements seen today would still be in the party just weaker.

Watts is a strong candidate while he is a strong conservative on social and fiscal policy, he still opposed legislation to ban affirmative action on the federal level. Now I’m not saying the GOP would win the black vote or any other minority group, but they wouldn’t be doing as bad as they are today. Personally, I don’t see Watts having much effect on changing any of Bush’s OTL policies or decisions.

But what would be interesting to see though is come the 2008 election when Watts is running how would it affect the votes for the bank bailout since it failed in the house on its first vote. Ultimately if Republicans keep up with the outreach efforts and don’t allow the nuts to take over the party it would be a better party today.

Watts would have a lot of difficulty getting the GOP nomination in 2008 given Bush's intense unpopularity and the poor economy. It could be done, but he'd be facing long odds.

Of course if both Watts and Obama are nominated in 2008, then for the first time two African-Americans would be competing as major party candidates for the Presidency. The question wouldn't be, "will America elect it's first black President?" It would be, "which man will be America's first black President?"
 
Election wise Watts might help Bush in some areas that Cheney didn’t, but it would still be close. The difference that Watts makes though is how the future of the GOP looks. If GOP leadership keeps up with this diversity outreach, then only good can come from it bearing in mind that the nativist elements seen today would still be in the party just weaker.

Watts is a strong candidate while he is a strong conservative on social and fiscal policy, he still opposed legislation to ban affirmative action on the federal level. Now I’m not saying the GOP would win the black vote or any other minority group, but they wouldn’t be doing as bad as they are today. Personally, I don’t see Watts having much effect on changing any of Bush’s OTL policies or decisions.

But what would be interesting to see though is come the 2008 election when Watts is running how would it affect the votes for the bank bailout since it failed in the house on its first vote. Ultimately if Republicans keep up with the outreach efforts and don’t allow the nuts to take over the party it would be a better party today.


Watts as VP means no Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. We could see a foreign policy that's less interventionist.

GOP doesn't need to win the black vote, it needs to win enough of the black vote. If they get ~20% that's pretty big.

I think the big impact of having Watts would be legislative. W OTL was fairly effective at getting bills through Congress, but now he has the GOP Conference Chair as his VP.

Without needing as much money-printing and low interest rates to fund the Iraq War, would there even be as bad a recession as OTL? Maybe, or at the very least the bubble may take longer to build up. Folks tend to treat the 2008 recession as a given in this forum. Yeah, a lot of it goes back to Clinton-era housing policies that bush exacerbated big-time, but there fiscal, monetary, and regulatory effects in the W years that made things bigger and badder.
 
Watts as VP means no Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. We could see a foreign policy that's less interventionist.

GOP doesn't need to win the black vote, it needs to win enough of the black vote. If they get ~20% that's pretty big.

I think the big impact of having Watts would be legislative. W OTL was fairly effective at getting bills through Congress, but now he has the GOP Conference Chair as his VP.

And Cheney was the one who pursuaded President-elect Bush not to support cap-and-trade legislation which Bush had favored during the 2000 election.

Without needing as much money-printing and low interest rates to fund the Iraq War, would there even be as bad a recession as OTL?

The recession might be a bit less severe without the added economic pressure, but the underlying causes of the housing bubble and stock market crash would still be there.
 
And Cheney was the one who pursuaded President-elect Bush not to support cap-and-trade legislation which Bush had favored during the 2000 election.



The recession might be a bit less severe without the added economic pressure, but the underlying causes of the housing bubble and stock market crash would still be there.

Cap and Trade means more environmental voters go for Bush, which is sort of significant as they tend to be the college-degree holding folks who trended democratic from 2000 onwards.


Housing prices likely rise more slowly without as much cheap money flooding the market and interest rates being higher (meaning fewer loans in the given period). Perhaps we see the economy going kaput in 2009 rather than 2008. Or maybe it'd have popped sooner (2006?).

The SEC might not change regulatory standards in 2004 for Basel-II compliance (which allowed for more lax lending standards and incentivized banks holding mortgage-related assets).
 
Cap and Trade means more environmental voters go for Bush, which is sort of significant as they tend to be the college-degree holding folks who trended democratic from 2000 onwards.


Housing prices likely rise more slowly without as much cheap money flooding the market and interest rates being higher (meaning fewer loans in the given period). Perhaps we see the economy going kaput in 2009 rather than 2008.
If no Iraq then Bush might try to get more tax cuts and reductions which Watts also supported such as targeting the estate and marriage tax. If Bush goes for cap and trade could we see backlash in coal-producing states like Obama saw?
 
Cap and Trade means more environmental voters go for Bush, which is sort of significant as they tend to be the college-degree holding folks who trended democratic from 2000 onwards.


Housing prices likely rise more slowly without as much cheap money flooding the market and interest rates being higher (meaning fewer loans in the given period). Perhaps we see the economy going kaput in 2009 rather than 2008.

Greenspan kept interest rates low not because of the war, but rather because he wanted to encourage as much economic growth as possible. It's worth pointing out that he cut interest rates in 2002, before the war began. Further, the recession actually started in 2007 - not 2008 - so even if the bubble burst is delayed by 8-10 months this swings the election to the Democrats. Even then, I'm not convinced that a lack of the war would do much considering that none of the studies of the recession that I've read have mentioned Iraq as a cause. Instead they point to underlying economic trends and neoliberal policies, none of which would be changed by Vice-President Watts unfortunately.
 
Top