Even Brown?
Maybe even Brown. Unless he picked Jackson as his running mate as he said he would before the crucial New York and Wisconsin primaries: then he probably would've lost.
Even Brown?
Maybe even Brown. Unless he picked Jackson as his running mate as he said he would before the crucial New York and Wisconsin primaries: then he probably would've lost.
Yeah. I believe that since Bush’s approval was so high (89%) at the beginning of 1991, when several candidates began weighing their options to run or now, many potential strong candidates were dissuaded by the fact that, at that time, Bush seemed unbeatable. Like I said before, had Clinton’s sexual assault allegations never come to light that one day in October, we might not be having this conversation.
Cuomo came *this close* to running in 1992, in fact he ordered a plane on the tarmac to fly to New Hampshire and begin campaigning. But at literally the last minute he declined, probably because he like everyone else knew Bush was going to win. But oddly enough, had he run he probably would've won. At the end of the day Cuomo made the right decision, since waiting until 1996 allowed him to take office during a booming economy and he was able to go down as a great or near great President for his leadership during 9/11. Had he run and won in '92 he'd be thought of as okay thanks to the good economy, but nothing that special. But one other thing would've been different though: had Ann Richards become VP four years earlier, before her health started to fail, this would've set her up for a presidential run in 2000. Maybe if things worked out differently America would've had its first female President by now.
Maybe even Brown.
Bleuch! I’m personally quite left-wing, and agree(d) with him on a lot of stuff but the idea of him being in the White House kinda terrifies me,
I for one don't think he'd have been a good President. Having done some reading on his campaign, he had almost no institutional party support and it's unlikely that any of his initiatives would've passed. He tried to be the most left wing and the most right wing candidate possible and there's no way that was going to work out in the long term. If he had won (which would've been impossible had he picked Jackson as a running mate due to his antisemitism) then he'd have been a one termer for sure. Maybe Colin Powell would've run against him in 1996, as many moderate Republicans hoped he would do in 2000 or 2004. If not Powell, then maybe Bob Dole in spite of his advanced age.
OOC: Once the midterms are over, I’ll be able to cover that. Anyone else got any other topics while we wait for that?
OOC: In OTL, the Republicans won 54 seats in 1994, putting them in a 230-204 majority (with one Indepedent). In this timeline, Republicans are still energized by some of Cuomo’s (what they perceive) radical policies, such as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, as well as him trying to take credit for the booming economy. As a result they pick up 45 seats insurers of 54, leaving them with a 221-213 majority. Not as big, but still substantial to retake the House.
OOC: Give me a second. I gotta look over OTL elections and see how they can go another way.OOC: How about the Senate?
In short, 2016 was definitely a year where we could see divisions in both parties. On top of Huntsman, Mike Huckabee, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney (OOC:...who was still Governor of Massachusetts, able to stick to his moderate views and not running for President until 2016, which strengthened his popularity in the state; appointed Secretary of State by Huntsman) Bill Graves, and Rudy Giuliani all ran, but at least the latter three were common sense conservatives who were willing to work across the aisle (OOC: In this reality, Giuliani won the 2000 Senate race he dropped out of against Hillary Clinton, then ran for Governor in 2010, winning in an upset. Therefore, he’s not as crazy as he is OTL.) The other three were firebrands. Plus, I think Gingrich was still heated about being passed over for Speaker of the House in 1999 for James Nussle.
The Democratic Party is definitely seeing it’s fair share of split as well. Elizabeth Warren was the first Democratic presidential candidate to support a government run universal healthcare program, as well as a jobs guarantee. Meanwhile, you had more moderate candidates like Jon Tester and Mary Landrieu who favored a more moderate approach, but were subsequently defeated by Warren. Now, we’re seeing Senators like herself, Harris, Gillibrand, and Sanders advocating similar policies.
Both parties are starting to bare their more progressive or conservative fangs, so to say.
Personally I doubt Huntsman will win re-election. No party has gone for four White House terms since 1992, and that was a fluke thanks in large part to Clinton's scandal. Since some economists are forecasting an economic decline around 2020, and Huntsman doesn't have Bush Sr's wartime popularity, the Democrats have a good chance of beating him with a strong candidate.
He’s gotten glowing approval ratings since he started, that much I know, and I realize that things can change in an instant. It also depends on who they nominate in 2020. Barack Obama is seen as the front runner. A former Governor turned Senator who has a record of bipartisanship. However, Democrats might also want a more progressive candidate.
After Warren's loss, I think Democrats will want a candidate who is center-left but not too liberal to win in the South, where Obama is actually fairly popular thanks to his support from minorities. I for one think he's the strongest Democratic candidate. If he could make his way through Illinois politics without getting indicted, I'm sure Obama is up to the task of defeating Jon Huntsman.