Paul V McNutt
Banned
As an alternative historian the what ifs of
history, of course, fascinate me. During this
election season, I often think about the various
factors that have shaped the outcomes of
presidential contests. Often times, events that
happened years earlier can help determine the winner.
As voters this year will choose President Gore´s successor, it struck me that one of the most obvious examples is that admission of Puerto
Rico as a state proved essential to his success in
2000. If the citizens of the 51st state had rejected
joining the Union in 1993, they would not have
provided the eight electoral votes that proved essential to
> Gore´s narrow 275 to 271 ( just one more than the
274 needed) margin of victory. In the other fifty states
And the DC, Gore lost 267 to 271. ( Many of you on this
Site are too young to remember that when Puerto Rico
became a state, the House of Representatives was
Expanded from 435 to 441. The electoral college had 538
members instead of the current 546. So it was only
necessary to win 270 electors.)
> OF course identifying the P.O.D. is only the
beginning challenge of alternative history. So
therefore I would like to begin a discussion that
completes our assignment by describing the
hypothetical Presidency of George W Bush. One of
the things to consider is how much public support
would he have enjoyed considering that he would have taken
office as the first Chief Executive since Benjamin
Harrison to have lost the popular vote. He also
would have won because of the controversial Florida
recount. While largely forgotten today the Supreme
Court´s decision in the lawsuits Bush vs Gore and Gore vs
Bush stopped the reexamining of ballots. While OTL
this reduced the number of Al Gore´s electoral votes. ITTL the
unelected conservative justices that formed the
majority, would have killed the hopes of Democrats
of keeping control of the White House. OF course
these events would made Al Gore the legitimate President
in the hearts of most Democratic activists and
therefore guaranteed him the 2004 Democratic
nomination. So we also also have to ask ourselves.
Who would have won the 2004 rematch?
history, of course, fascinate me. During this
election season, I often think about the various
factors that have shaped the outcomes of
presidential contests. Often times, events that
happened years earlier can help determine the winner.
As voters this year will choose President Gore´s successor, it struck me that one of the most obvious examples is that admission of Puerto
Rico as a state proved essential to his success in
2000. If the citizens of the 51st state had rejected
joining the Union in 1993, they would not have
provided the eight electoral votes that proved essential to
> Gore´s narrow 275 to 271 ( just one more than the
274 needed) margin of victory. In the other fifty states
And the DC, Gore lost 267 to 271. ( Many of you on this
Site are too young to remember that when Puerto Rico
became a state, the House of Representatives was
Expanded from 435 to 441. The electoral college had 538
members instead of the current 546. So it was only
necessary to win 270 electors.)
> OF course identifying the P.O.D. is only the
beginning challenge of alternative history. So
therefore I would like to begin a discussion that
completes our assignment by describing the
hypothetical Presidency of George W Bush. One of
the things to consider is how much public support
would he have enjoyed considering that he would have taken
office as the first Chief Executive since Benjamin
Harrison to have lost the popular vote. He also
would have won because of the controversial Florida
recount. While largely forgotten today the Supreme
Court´s decision in the lawsuits Bush vs Gore and Gore vs
Bush stopped the reexamining of ballots. While OTL
this reduced the number of Al Gore´s electoral votes. ITTL the
unelected conservative justices that formed the
majority, would have killed the hopes of Democrats
of keeping control of the White House. OF course
these events would made Al Gore the legitimate President
in the hearts of most Democratic activists and
therefore guaranteed him the 2004 Democratic
nomination. So we also also have to ask ourselves.
Who would have won the 2004 rematch?