DBWI: President Cheney doesn't come out for Same-Sex Marriage?

In 2004 President Cheney came out in support of Same-Sex Marriage following Massachusetts's implementation of it.

What if he hadn't done so?


The 2004 electoral map was, to say the least, weird as the Democrats walked the social conservative line and Cheney refused to backtrack.
 
You'd get the evangelical-SJW linkage in the mid 2010s instead of the late 2000s as per OTL. Remember, Americas' had periods with reform movements combined with pietistic moralistic busybodying. Also notice the rising inequality, the top 10-20% benefitting. Notice both the SJWs and evangelicals in both otl and this TL tend to be upper class. Victorian to progressive era, and the Clinton-Obama years of 2008-present. Incidently, Obama's being more likable than the woman he followed is why it's only now getting stale, notice he's been de-empasizing increasingly failed attempts to "clean up" the internet and the FCC is at least now allowing bathing suits to be shown on tv again. He'll win in '20 easily, but the GOP's probably got a luck on '24.
 
In his autobiography, Cheney tells how his daughter argued with him not to go too far out on a limb and not to endanger his political career.

But he had he decided the time had come, and that it was particularly important for conservatives to speak up.
 
Cheney’s decision helped move the Republicans in a more socially moderate direction. Hard to see how Mitch Daniels wins the White House in a scenario where the GOP remains fixated on social conservatism.
 

manav95

Banned
In 2004 President Cheney came out in support of Same-Sex Marriage following Massachusetts's implementation of it.

What if he hadn't done so?


The 2004 electoral map was, to say the least, weird as the Democrats walked the social conservative line and Cheney refused to backtrack.

Certainly it made 2004 a realigning election as it brought socially conservative white voters in the Midwest and South back to the Democratic fold. The Republicans, however, managed to reverse the inroads the Democrats had made with upscale white voters in the 1990s, eventually leading them to victories in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and Delaware. Mitch Daniels was able to win in 2004 due to these states flipping, but the Democrats roared back into power in 2008 on the economic crisis and disaffected white working class voters defecting en masse to the Democrats.

If he hadn't done that, the Democrats would probably be in a hole as they would continue to lose support among social conservatives in the South and Midwest, and these areas aren't getting diverse fast enough. It is also unclear if Asians would become a solid Democratic bloc just bc of social issues. The Libertarians would probably be much stronger TTL due to more socially conservative GOP alienating fiscal conservatives who don't agree with that sort of thing.
 
Democrats certainly wouldn't have the GOP advantage in the New South. Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Kentucky, and West Virginia are bluer than the Caribbean, but Tennessee, Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia remain stubborn toss-ups that tilt red. The Bush Brothers built solidly Republican machines in Florida and Texas too that have pretty much locked the Democrats out of those states permanently, and South Carolina remains a bastion of conservative Republicanism for reasons that continue to confound.

I doubt the Libertarians would be stronger. They're not a very organized lot. A libertarian(ish) party might fare well, but THE Libertarian Party... eh.


I'm not quite sure you can entirely say 2004 was the pivot though. In 2000 Asians and Muslims were already a pro-GOP demographic and Bush won 40% of the Hispanic vote. If anything, 2004 was more of a tilt - the GOP could have gone in a more libertarian(ish) direction or a more populist direction) and Cheney's campaign tilted them in the socially liberal route.


Daniels's 2004 win was... weird. Cheney picking the OMB Director as his running mate and proceeding to have a stroke mid-campaign was quite the stroke of luck for Daniels (hardy har har... sorry). Choosing NSA Rice, somebody of the same internationalist vein as Cheney, to be the running mate was a smart move too and certainly mixed the coalitions around.

Daniels was pretty inoculated from the catastrophes of his administration though - largely because they were only nominally his catastrophes. When you publicly say that you're appointing the former (accidental) President as Secretary of State and that you will be leaving Foreign Policy to be handled entirely by Vice President Rice and Secretary Cheney so that you can focus on being a Domestic President, it's really hard for anybody to pin you with any blame.

He balanced the budget, handled Katrina like only a master bureaucrat could, saw through key education reforms and the first national school choice program, oversaw privatization of airport security and air traffic control, pushed through immigration reform... and then proceeded to step down in 2007 so he could run for Governor of Indiana. Mitch Daniels, the only guy to become President who never wanted the job.

The housing crisis probably would have been worse if not for Daniels. Fannie and Freddie reforms, cutting off the spigot with the cheap money that was all going into housing-based assets, and him pushing back on the implementation of reporting standards based off the Basel II system (which incentivized holding mortgage-based assets) all resulted in the housing bubble being far smaller than it could have been.

A lot of emphasis is put on the economy for the Democratic wave in 2008, but I think the fact that the GOP ticket was an all-woman Rice-Whitman ticket and that the President was a black woman had a lot more to do with their defeat. Just look at which districts saw the biggest turnout spikes...
 

manav95

Banned
Screen Shot 2018-12-20 at 10.37.29 PM.png


Mitch Daniels(R)/Condoleeza Rice(R) 279 EV/50.9%
John Edwards(D)/Wesley Clark(D) 259 EV/47.8%

Thus began the Democratic Southern Strategy to take back part of the South.

2008:
Screen Shot 2018-12-20 at 10.48.22 PM.png


Hillary Clinton(D)/Barack Obama(D) 381 EV/54.2%
Condoleeza Rice(R)/Meg Whitman(R) 157 EV/44.1%

Democrats proceed to show renewed strength in the South and Midwest, even taking over Indiana, North Dakota, and South Dakota due to an appeal to social conservatism and economic populism.
 
Last edited:

manav95

Banned
Screen Shot 2018-12-20 at 11.00.52 PM.png


Hillary Clinton(D)/Barack Obama(D) 314 EV/52.3%
Gary Johnson(R)/Meg Whitman(R) 224 EV/46.1%

Looking at this map, the Pacific Northwest, Hawaii, New Jersey, Delaware, New Hampshire, and Connecticut have switched over to the Republicans due to increased strength among educated whites and Asians. California and Nevada remain in the Democratic camp due to Latino growth, while New Mexico votes for its favorite son Gary Johnson. Virginia and Pennsylvania narrowly vote for Hillary Clinton, while Maine has flipped red.

Screen Shot 2018-12-20 at 11.02.43 PM.png


Barack Obama(D)/Julian Castro(D) 50.9%/302 EV
Linda Lingle(R)/Rudy Giuliani(R) 47.2%/236 EV

Once again, another close election, but it appears that Obama was able to unite white evangelicals and rural blacks in the South to come out on top in states like Alabama and Louisiana. The Democrats are clearly shifting to the South and Midwest. Arizona and New Mexico flipped back to the Democrats, indicating increased Latino votes there. And Washington was the closest state, won due to Obama's more moderate social stances and more progressive economic policies.
 
OOC: I can't see Johnson as the 2012 nominee - he's been out of office too long and is too gaffe prone.

If you want a libertarian Republican, Sanford or Huntsman is your best bet. Maybe Portman, although he never had presidential ambitions.


Obama would not be HRC's running mate. If the Democrats are going populist - which includes cultural conservatism, anti-immigration, anti-foreign, etc - then having a half-Kenyan born in Hawaii who grew up in Indonesia with a middle name that both comes from the grandson of Muhammad and is the same name as the guy the US just overthrew in Iraq really doesn't work.

Ted Strickland works better.
 

manav95

Banned
OOC: I can't see Johnson as the 2012 nominee - he's been out of office too long and is too gaffe prone.

If you want a libertarian Republican, Sanford or Huntsman is your best bet. Maybe Portman, although he never had presidential ambitions.


Obama would not be HRC's running mate. If the Democrats are going populist - which includes cultural conservatism, anti-immigration, anti-foreign, etc - then having a half-Kenyan born in Hawaii who grew up in Indonesia with a middle name that both comes from the grandson of Muhammad and is the same name as the guy the US just overthrew in Iraq really doesn't work.

Ted Strickland works better.

OOC: Except in this TL, Obama would help appeal to black voters in the country.
 
Top