DBWI: George H.W. Bush loses re-election in 1992

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.
 
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.
 
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, but she would have died had she been re-elected. History will still judge her as the first woman to sit in the White House as Vice President.
 
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, albeit still not as much as President Buchanan (him getting the Constitution Party federal funding was already terrible as it was, even if they did lose it in the very next election)
 
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.
 
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.

I think he would’ve handed Dan Quayle the White House despite all of his gaffes and blunders.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
OOC: Once the midterms are over, I’ll be able to cover that. Anyone else got any other topics while we wait for that?

OCC: How large was the 1998 Republican Revolution in this TL? I’d imagine that it could be smaller because of 16 years of red, but still, I could be wrong.
 
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: 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: How about the Senate?
 
OOC: Ok, here we go.

The Senate in 1998 comprised of 51 Democrats and 49 Republicans. This was made possible by pickups in Arizona (Jon Kyl), Michigan (Spencer Abraham), Tennessee (Bill Frist), California (Michael Huffington, in a shocking upset), and Ohio (Mike DeWine) in 1994 (coinciding with OTL, while the other GOP pick ups were won by Democrats ITTL) and a pick up by the Republicans in Nebraska (Chuck Hagel) in 1996 despite losing the Presidency to Mario Cuomo

In 1998, several highly contested races were decided. In the end, Republicans picked up a total of 7 seats. In addition to the three seats they picked up in OTL, they also kept the three seats they lost (New York, North Carolina, and Indiana), and they also picked up Nevada after John Ensign defeated Harry Reid by a narrow majority. Al D’Amato also kept his seat in New York by a margin of 104 votes out of 4.5 million cast. Schumer contested the results, demanding recount after recount when the New York Court of Appeals certified the results on April 12, 1999, allowing Schumer to finally concede.

The composition became 56-44 in favor of the Republicans.
 
Last edited:
OOC: Lot of changes, and some results that stay the same, but for the most part, the 1998 Republican Revolution was slightly smaller ITTL than OTL, but it still proved to be a pivotal point.
 
OOC: Also, the Republican Revolution led the way for many younger voters to vote Republican. This was mainly energized by James Nussle, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, whose young age of 38 was to energize more young people to vote for the Republican Party. Without a Speaker Newt Gingrich, who many blame for the partisanship we see in OTL, the partisanship isn’t as bad as it is OTL, but you still see attempts to bridge the divide and work across the aisle, such as the implementation of CuomoCare in 2003 and the creation of the Consumer Protection Financial Bureau in 2004.
 
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.
 
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.

OOC: Also, thanks for the shoutout on the other thread!
 
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.
 
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.

That’s true. Getting through Illinois politics without indictment is an accomplishment in and of its own. XD

That being said, I don’t think he can truly win the South. Obama’s best bet is to appeal to Rust Belt voters in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, states the Democrats have not won since 2004. A lot of working, middle class voters in the Rust Belt left the Democratic Party en masse after the recession and the disaster of the Kerry administration. He’ll need to unite a lot of disenfranchised and disallusioned voters in those areas to have a fighting chance.
 
Top