Calcaterra
Donor
I think 2020 is going to be a poison chalice. Whomever wins in 2020 will lose big time in 2024.
Probably.
I think 2020 is going to be a poison chalice. Whomever wins in 2020 will lose big time in 2024.
Probably.
If 2020 is a poison chalice, it would truly be a shame since Huntsman is the kind of President that reaches across the aisle to find concensus despite a difference in ideologies with Democrats.
I voted for him in 2016, without a second thought. He is like a modern day George Bush, and I can see him being successful if re-elected... but that would be unfair to Haley, who wouldn't be able to get elected to the Presidency.
Of course. Mitt Romney, John McCain, Jeb Bush, ect., would all still have influence, and I can see the moderate wing at least splitting control for decades to come. The conservatives seem a little too much like Attila the Hun to ever succeed.
Thankfully, it really helped us that the Cuomo administration invested quite a bit in voter education & reviving civics education, as well as reviving the Fairness Doctrine, during both of his terms: if our problem with low-information voters had gotten as bad as, say, Poland(That poor country is damn near a complete and utter mess now thanks to 8 years of PiS rule, at this point; thank goodness we haven't had our own Kaczynski!), I'm not sure where we'd be, but perhaps not in any place too pleasant.
OOC: Should I post the list of Presidents from the Alternate Presidents and PMs Thread II to kind of lay out the trajectory of this timeline?
OOC: Let’s get this started again! New topic!
We’re coming up on the two year anniversary of the 2016 Election. Was there a possibility that Elizabeth Warren could have beaten Jon Huntsman? Many people weren’t keen on Warren being that she was in the middle of her first term as Senator, while Huntsman was facing concern from the more conservative Republicans about whether he would govern conservatively.
Those conservatives nearly tore him down in the primaries... I'm glad that he was elected, but still, to think what could have been. The Republicans could have nominated someone like, ugh, Huckabee or Rick Perry. I'm not very sure how that would have turned out, I mean, the Republicans did very well in talking up the Bush administration and four more years, but with the conservatives, we could have seen moderates sit it out and independents go blue. While Warren was inexperienced and more left of center than the traditional candidate, she wasn't as alienating as Huckabee or as gaffe-prone as Perry. I voted for Huntsman in 2016, but personally, I think I would have either kept out or voted Libertarian.
If they had ran Cuomo early, or even Gore, they probably could have pulled it off. A triangulating Democrat earlier in the 90's would have been interesting(just one who wasn't a sex offender).I just came back from the George H.W. Bush Presidential Library, and I have to say, I’m quite astounded by what I saw. I mean, here’s a guy that took what seemed to be his election to lose in 1992, and somehow, managed to turn it all around in his second term. He’s constantly rated as one of the best presidents in recent memory.
It got me thinking, and I want to see what others think, of what might have been had Bill Clinton actually beat George H.W. Bush in 1992. What would our country be like had we had a Democrat in the White House during the 1990’s economic boom.
OOC: The POD here is that the sexual assault allegations against Bill Clinton come to light during the 1992 election, causing the Arkansas Governor to lose in the slimmest of electoral margins to the sitting Republican President. As a result, Bush receives much of the credit for the economic boom and rapid American GDP growth that occurred during the 1990’s.
This is my first alternate history of any kind, so bear with me on this one.
I was surprised at why so many more right-wing conservatives wanted to take down a Vice President who was willing to govern the same as the very President that they continually praised. I mean, did they even see Huntsman’s record as Governor of Utah, one of the most conservative states in the country? He was so damn popular there that he won re-election in 2004 with nearly 80% of the vote!
While most conservatives did stay loyal to the party (Huntsman did, after all, win the nomination and the election by fairly large margins), I think it was a big example of people exploiting (and creating) divides in order to increase their gains. You can see it with the anti-Mormon sentiment in some of these campaigns. It wasn't like Rick Perry was really trying to combat that part of his base. Sad, but smart.
It’s because they come from two different worlds, religiously speaking. Utah is a state known for its Mormon faith, while Texas is more Christian conservative, becoming even more so under Rick Perry.
I mean, of course conservatives would still flock to Huntsman after wining the nomination. If they didn’t vote for him, they might have handed Elizabeth Warren the White House on a silver plate, and the way conservatives talked up how Warren would be horrible for everything Bush did for them over the eight years he was President, voting for Huntsman was a necessity to avoid such a thing.
If they had ran Cuomo early, or even Gore, they probably could have pulled it off. A triangulating Democrat earlier in the 90's would have been interesting(just one who wasn't a sex offender).
Even Brown?In retrospect, just about anybody besides Clinton could've beaten Bush in 1992.