DBWI: Trump doesn’t run in 1988

Probably the most unusual chapter in American history was at the turn of the decade from Reagan’s high-flying Hollywood optimism to Gore’s reserved, subdued optimism was the brash man known as Dollars and Sense Donald.

Donald J. Trump became President thanks to the efforts of a man named Mike Dunbar, who pushed Trump to outdo the Republican field. Trump ran on one simple premise - the economy was strong under Reagan and he was the one to take that to the next level. In some ways, he was the anti-Reagan - he wasn’t polished, he was a New Yorker in contrast to a Californian, he was a mere 42 years of age, the youngest to be elected in American history to contrast with the aged Reagan, and he didn’t speak ill of government involvement the way Reagan did. But he had the same ultimate concern - growing the economy and cutting taxes.

And for that, he was immensely popular. The problem? He didn’t give a damn for foreign policy, and neither did anyone who worked in his administration. Saddam embarrassed Trump and exposed him as falling short in that area. He didn’t get alon with Margaret Thatcher or Boris Yeltsin, and the time he was overheard calling the Japanese prime minister a “fucking idiot” after he tried to bow to him and ended up headbutting him instead. If he had studied Japanese cumture for half a second, he would know Japanese people expect Americans to shake their hands, not to bow. In fact, that kind of faux pas is now known in Japan as “Torampu-suru” or “to do what Trump does.”

Enough goof-ups later, and when the economy inevitably slowed down, the people got sick of Trump and voted him out in 1992 in favor of the calmer Al Gore.

But Trump revealed years later he almost didn’t run. Who would have gotten it in ‘88 if he didn’t run? And what kind of job would they have done, especially in Iraq?
 
Vice President Bush would've likely gotten the nomination. He came in at a close second to the Donald in the primaries that year and according to the Reagan diaries, Bush was Reagan's preferred choice for President as Reagan felt someone with Bush's Foreign policy background was needed with all the changes going on with regard to the Cold War at the time. Whether he wins the General Election is another story. Trump got lucky with the Democrats nominating Jesse Jackson, had Gephardt or even Dukakis been nominated, Trump would've lost. Of the candidates that ran, only Gephardt would've beaten Bush. Dukakis makes it a toss up. Bush definitely handles Foreign Policy better than Trump, but does he handle the economy any better? Yes, Trump handled it poorly, but Bush openly admitted that he preferred Foreign Policy over Domestic, so I question how much better Bush handles the economy, if he handles it better at all.
 
As at @dw93 said, it's certainly going to be Bush or somebody else from the establishment "Cold War Coalition" of robust Hawks, States Rights/Decenteralizers, Values Voters and Coolage Corperatists who defined the era following the collapse of the New Deal Coalition. No matter what you think of Trump's policies, his biggest impact was antaginizing the rift (as the USSR fell) between the ideological/populist and economic/classical liberal elements of the Right by utterly discrediting the Republican forgein policy and so removing the glue that was holding them together. Bush, on the other hand, likely keeps the "Old Guard" in power long enough to organize a pivot and mediate a new understanding between the different factions, thus extending the period of Republican dominance for at least a few more terms.
 
As at @dw93 said, it's certainly going to be Bush or somebody else from the establishment "Cold War Coalition" of robust Hawks, States Rights/Decenteralizers, Values Voters and Coolage Corperatists who defined the era following the collapse of the New Deal Coalition. No matter what you think of Trump's policies, his biggest impact was antaginizing the rift (as the USSR fell) between the ideological/populist and economic/classical liberal elements of the Right by utterly discrediting the Republican forgein policy and so removing the glue that was holding them together. Bush, on the other hand, likely keeps the "Old Guard" in power long enough to organize a pivot and mediate a new understanding between the different factions, thus extending the period of Republican dominance for at least a few more terms.
Yea, even if Bush lost in 1992 like Trump did, I doubt a Bush Presidency would be as damaging to the GOP as Trump's was. The Democrats recovered from Carter quicker than the GOP did from Trump. Not until Romney was elected in 2008 did the GOP take the Presidency back, heck they couldn't take the Senate back until 1998 and the House didn't flip to the GOP until 2002.
 
One good thing that came out of it is the Western investment in Russia in the early 1990s largely as a way of attempting to make up for Trump's hardcore isolationism. It ensured that Yeltsin's Russia avoided major economic problems and the new West-Russia friendship would continue to survive.

Without that, Putin would be in charge rather than Nemtsov, and would probably be fairly hostile to the west. Or, God forbid, Zhirinovsky might be in charge.
 
The Republicans would have been spared Trump's continual (and ever more pathetic) attempts to pull a Cleveland in the primaries.
 
The Republicans would have been spared Trump's continual (and ever more pathetic) attempts to pull a Cleveland in the primaries.

This is true, although for most of the runs the other big concern was “What the hell do we do in four years?” Also finding a VP who would work with Trump - Pat Robertson said he wouldn’t do it again since he said he thought Trump was “unbalanced” and most of the GOP establishment finds him hard to work with. He even tried to run as a Democrat in 2012 - he was laughed out of the Iowa caucus and dropped out after South Carolina but not before reaching out to some federal judge Romney appointed...used to be the Senator out of some big state in flyover country..:about being his running mate. The pictures of him laughing about it are hilarious...some black dude with big ears. What’s his name again?
 

samcster94

Banned
One good thing that came out of it is the Western investment in Russia in the early 1990s largely as a way of attempting to make up for Trump's hardcore isolationism. It ensured that Yeltsin's Russia avoided major economic problems and the new West-Russia friendship would continue to survive.

Without that, Putin would be in charge rather than Nemtsov, and would probably be fairly hostile to the west. Or, God forbid, Zhirinovsky might be in charge.
I read a timeline like that. Instead of our OTL relatively neutral Russia that is democratic, but extremely conservative, Putin runs a hostile Russia as a dictator. Somehow Trump is President much later and the woman who wrote the timeline
wanked the Governor of Arkansas and his wife to a lesser extent.
 
I read a timeline like that. Instead of our OTL relatively neutral Russia that is democratic, but extremely conservative, Putin runs a hostile Russia as a dictator. Somehow Trump is President much later and the woman who wrote the timeline
wanked the Governor of Arkansas and his wife to a lesser extent.

Heh heh...based on the reason said AR governor didn’t get the nomination in ‘92, that woman wasn’t the only one “wanking” him.

And yeah, Hillary Rodham had a decent career as a Democratic strategist, kind of like a female James Carville, but she wasn’t getting near the White House. Definitely not after all the taunts abouther ex’s love child with that woman from the Walton family.
 
I don't see how Bush wins on 1988. No sitting VP has been elected President since Martin van Buren.
Like I said, it all depends on who the Democrats nominate to run against Bush. If it's Jackson like OTL, Bush wins in a Nixon 1972 style landslide. Dukakis makes it a toss up. If it's Gephardt or if Gore runs four years earlier I lean toward them winning a 1960 or 1976 style electoral victory.
 
Top