Flower Power

OMG best update yet, I can totally see Jackson dumbfounded as Stockdale just talks and talks. My one nitpick: I don't think Jackson would be so level-headed, am I the only one who sees him getting caught in the moment and seeing him caught off guard? Oh well, amazing work (as always)

No, I could see him making a major mistake very easily despite all the coaching he might have received.

When Jackson dropped the deal, he went back to his usual style. If he were facing more competent opponents, he likely would have lost. However, when you're facing off against an unprepared old man with no prior debate experience and the original Sarah Palin, it's kind of hard to lose.
 
When Jackson dropped the deal, he went back to his usual style. If he were facing more competent opponents, he likely would have lost. However, when you're facing off against an unprepared old man with no prior debate experience and the original Sarah Palin, it's kind of hard to lose.

I suppose that's a decent explanation and judging by Quayle's RL debate performances: yeah it's a damn good explanation :p
 
Two for the Show

Corbis-42-32081901.jpg

Jerry Brown and Ross Perot were still upholding their truce, although it wasn’t as strong as it once was. While they held no personal animosity towards each other, there was a level of distrust that complicated things. While Perot had apologized to Brown for Stockdale’s actions, the Governor couldn’t help but wonder if the slip had been planned all along. Any lingering issues the two may have had appeared to clean up after the election.

The final two Presidential Debates were decisive in determining the outcome of the ’92 election. In the first debate, the President had believed his opponents to be lightweights. He thought Brown would be another Dukakis and that Perot was more of a fad than an actual candidate. The licking he got from both of them was a wake-up call, and Bush’s campaign buckled down in response.

As he himself had said before, Brown was fighting with one hand behind his back in terms of fundraising, and (unbeknownst to him) Perot’s campaign was severely disorganized with no substance on the issues. Both of these facts gave Bush the upper hand, and he used his money to purchase time on television. He used it to flood the airwaves with attack ads against Brown and Perot. He raised questions about Brown’s character, and appeared to question his patriotism when he asked why Brown had not served during Vietnam. Perot was framed as nothing more than a celebrity.

Corbis-WL003957.jpg

The second debate featured a different format than the first. Instead of sitting behind a podium taking questions from a moderator, there would be a brand-new method where they would be seated in chairs, able to get up and walk around the stage. They would take questions from the audience, and would be free to interact with them.

Each candidate held their own and they were able to talk to the audience relatively easily. The debate was not as notable as the two previous ones, and there isn’t really much to say about them. Both of Bush’s opponents got their say in, but it did hardly anything to shift around the national poll numbers. This is mostly attributed to the fact that neither Perot or Brown were able to challenge Bush directly.

With Election Day growing nearer and nearer, there was only one more debate left to go. That meant that Brown and Perot (who both relied on free media to supplement their frugal campaigns) had one last shot to take down Bush.
 
One Last Chance

Corbis-JQ001774.jpg

Jerry Brown and Ross Perot were still operating under the terms of their original secret agreement. However, as election day neared, each began to worry about his own chances at winning the Presidency. It was all well and good to take down Bush, but with the day of reckoning so close, it was no longer in their best interests to go after him exclusively. There could only be one winner in the race, and so Brown and Perot each shifted their plans. They would take shots at each other as well as at Bush, while still focusing their strongest lines on the President.

Brown would argue that running a country is not like running a business, and that some experience is required to do it effectively. He would push his own record as Governor of California, and lay out the “fundamental differences” between the corporate and political worlds. Perot, on the other hand, would argue the opposite. If Brown would run as the outsider to Washington, Perot would run as the outsider to politics itself. He would argue that he was not a politician, and that the job of the government should be to get things done rather than move at a snail’s pace and only act when it’s too late. Neither of them was aware of the other’s plans, and they figured that they would be able to take their opponent by surprise. However, they were not the only ones entering that final debate intending to fight harder.

Corbis-TL026451.jpg

President Bush had underestimated his opponents in the first debate, and was unable to attack them directly in the second. The third debate would have a similar format to the first, meaning that it was his turn to go after them. When the three finally met onstage for the final time, the whole country was watching. Initially, it appeared to be very similar to the first debate, with Perot and Brown going after Bush’s handling of the economy. However, unlike last time, Bush was successfully able to change the subject and make both of his opponents go on the defensive. Bush hit both of them on their opposition to the proposed North American Free Trade Agreement. He called Brown a man that opposes the principles of the free market, and nearly called him a socialist. Perot had an easier time dealing with Bush’s attacks in that regard, although many in the audience found him repetitive and dull in some instances.

While Bush didn’t score any knockout blows, he did what he set out to do. He prevented Brown and Perot from scoring any major hits against him so close to Election Day, and he managed to look calm, confident, and competent. With that victory under his belt, the Bush campaign made one final blitz before the big day. They launched a massive television ad campaign in all 50 states, running both pro-Bush ads as well as attack ads against both of his opponents. His opponents either didn’t have the money to respond to the ads with some of their own, or didn’t want to spend the money to respond. The week before the election, it showed an essentially tied race as most voters began to actually pay attention to the race for the first time in the entire season. It was anybody’s game at that point, and nobody knew who would win in 1992.
 
Face front true believers!

Sorry about the lackluster and lazy past two updates, I've been preoccupied with getting prepared for a return to college life. However, that's not going to stop me from doing a longer (and hopefully more substantive) update either tomorrow morning or later tonight, depending on when I can finish it.

And with this next update, you will know who is going to be the next President of the United States!
 
So what does everyone think so far?

Is there anything too implausible in it, or over the top?

jackson surviving without his mistresses coming forward is not plausible... and with clinton's implosion brown's vp selection team would be extra sensitive to scandals and never let him get past the list

and considering jackson has pants problems (mistresses (his out of wedlock child wasn't born yet, but his after hours activities would not be hard to uncover with a cursory review of his financial records) and financial/corruption problems with his coalition's finances going to his pockets and to shower gifts on his mistresses which will come up on a serious review

brown's staff would get wind of this and full stop any idea of letting jackson anywhere near the campaign
 
jackson surviving without his mistresses coming forward is not plausible... and with clinton's implosion brown's vp selection team would be extra sensitive to scandals and never let him get past the list

and considering jackson has pants problems (mistresses (his out of wedlock child wasn't born yet, but his after hours activities would not be hard to uncover with a cursory review of his financial records) and financial/corruption problems with his coalition's finances going to his pockets and to shower gifts on his mistresses which will come up on a serious review

brown's staff would get wind of this and full stop any idea of letting jackson anywhere near the campaign

Again, the Democratic ticket was thrown together at the last minute at a contested convention.

As for your other points, they will be addressed in the next update.
 
jackson surviving without his mistresses coming forward is not plausible... and with clinton's implosion brown's vp selection team would be extra sensitive to scandals and never let him get past the list

and considering jackson has pants problems (mistresses (his out of wedlock child wasn't born yet, but his after hours activities would not be hard to uncover with a cursory review of his financial records) and financial/corruption problems with his coalition's finances going to his pockets and to shower gifts on his mistresses which will come up on a serious review

brown's staff would get wind of this and full stop any idea of letting jackson anywhere near the campaign

Actually BW, which affairs are you referring to?

The only thing I was able to find on Jackson that fits your description was the case of Karin Stanford, which resulted in the birth of a daughter out of wedlock in 1999 (which is WAY after the '92 election). That, and I can't find anything about his "afterhours activities" that surfaced during either of his Presidential bids in '84 or '88, where he came in third and second place respectively.

So if you could cite some specific instances of this behavior that took place before his nomination as Vice President ATL, I'd be better able to address the issue. Otherwise, I can't hold the alternate Jackson responsible for the actions of his future OTL self.
 
Actually BW, which affairs are you referring to?

The only thing I was able to find on Jackson that fits your description was the case of Karin Stanford, which resulted in the birth of a daughter out of wedlock in 1999 (which is WAY after the '92 election). That, and I can't find anything about his "afterhours activities" that surfaced during either of his Presidential bids in '84 or '88, where he came in third and second place respectively.

So if you could cite some specific instances of this behavior that took place before his nomination as Vice President ATL, I'd be better able to address the issue. Otherwise, I can't hold the alternate Jackson responsible for the actions of his future OTL self.

The rumor's about jackson's behavior including the skimming of funds from the rainbow coalition start in the early 90's; and it was conclusively proven in the IRS audit in 2000 that it had been going on for a number of years

There is also the potential emergence of members of the rainbow push who will accuse him of man on man sexual harassment (which has happened a couple of time already; with the rainbow push settling those matters out of court)

Any vetting of jackson even if rushed is going to see questionable payments; and interviews with his staff are going to show problems that brown's people will not want to deal with

The big powerful jewish donors in New York, Florida and New Jersey will freak the hell out; and even if Brown himself isn't taking big donations the DNC will shit itself if those people are not bankrolling their congressional campaign coffers and the party treasury for the election cycle due to anger over the selection of jackson
 
The rumor's about jackson's behavior including the skimming of funds from the rainbow coalition start in the early 90's; and it was conclusively proven in the IRS audit in 2000 that it had been going on for a number of years

There is also the potential emergence of members of the rainbow push who will accuse him of man on man sexual harassment (which has happened a couple of time already; with the rainbow push settling those matters out of court)

Any vetting of jackson even if rushed is going to see questionable payments; and interviews with his staff are going to show problems that brown's people will not want to deal with

The big powerful jewish donors in New York, Florida and New Jersey will freak the hell out; and even if Brown himself isn't taking big donations the DNC will shit itself if those people are not bankrolling their congressional campaign coffers and the party treasury for the election cycle due to anger over the selection of jackson

As far as I know, neither of those issues came up during either of Jackson's presidential bids, where he'd have been under even tougher scrutiny than if he had gained the VP nod (nobody gives a rats ass about the VP for very long). That, and anything he had was proven later on, meaning any potential investigations (if they occur) can be deferred until after the election.

The issue of supposed male-on-male sexual harrassment, as far as I am aware, occurred sometime around 2007, which is irrelevant to the '92 election.

As far as Brown vetting Jackson, presidential candidates don't always vet their VP's very well before picking them. After all, these were Brown's people, so you know the way Brown vets 'em is going to be different from the way someone like Tsongas or Clinton would vet them. Just look at how much McCain vetted Palin before he picked her. Hell, look at Paul Ryan's baggage. The Romney team had to have known they were going to catch flak for his budget proposals, but they picked him anyway.

You make a good point about Jewish donors and the DNC though, but I find that it's too late to go back and change things now.
 
Last edited:
Four More Years

Corbis-0000280725-002.jpg

The 1992 Presidential election was quite an experience for anyone who had been involved in it. It had many moments and facts that separated it from its predecessors. In this election, we witnessed the first African American Vice Presidential nominee of either major political party at the time, as well as the first time an independent candidate appeared to have a serious shot at winning the Presidency in recent history. After months of tough campaigning and vigorous fundraising, President George HW Bush achieved his goal, and was awarded with the right to serve for another four years as President of the United States. In his victory speech on election night, he congratulated both of his opponents on well-run campaigns, and promised the nation that more prosperous days were right around the corner.

Corbis-NF119777.jpg

A consensus has been reached among analysts that while there were a lot of things that contributed to the victory of President Bush in ’92, two major factors stand out among the rest. The first was a large advantage in terms of money. He blew away the competition with his fundraising, managing to spend almost five times the amount that both the Brown and Perot campaigns combined. This is mostly due to the fact that Brown had set a very strict limit on how much he would accept in donations from individual contributors, and that Perot had largely self-funded his bid (though he was notorious for penny-pinching, and was at one point called a cheapskate by one of his former staffers). The more money he had meant the more ads he could run on television, and the more he could campaign for both himself and members of his own party. The other major factor that contributed to Bush’s successful re-election was that Ross Perot and Jerry Brown split the vote. Brown’s selection of Jesse Jackson alone was seen as the event that led to his massive loss in the south. In nearly every southern state, Perot came in second behind Bush, as many conservative Democrats claimed that their party’s ticket was “too radical” for them. Some speculate that race may have been the motivation for the shift, but there is little evidence to support that theory. In any case, Perot wound up taking away more Democrats from Brown than Republicans from Bush, making him a spoiler candidate in this race.

Corbis-42-23040086.jpg

Jerry Brown’s concession speech was given on the night of the election, where a notably agitated Brown lamented his loss to the President, but promised to continue fighting for America’s middle class, the poor, and “all those that suffer injustice, no matter who or where they are.” While Brown did better than Dukakis had four years earlier, it didn’t do him any favors with his party. In fact, his loss played a large role in the future restructuring of the party. Brown’s loss in 1992 was seen by many Democrats (and was portrayed by the media) as the last stand of the old liberal wing of the party, and a repudiation of everything that they stood for. It helped fuel a growing movement within the party that had been gaining steam for quite some time. The New Democrats, as they were called, blamed their loss on Brown being too liberal, and said it was time for the party to re-examine its political positions. The New Democrats made the argument that the Reagan Revolution had changed American politics forever, and that they could no longer win by running on the policies of the left. Instead, the party should begin a shift to the center and try to be more reasonable than they were before. The New Democrats found their leader in former Senator Paul Tsongas, who was the runner up to Jerry Brown at the Democratic National Convention, and had long since criticized the nominee for being too partisan.

Corbis-0000280710-010.jpg

Ross Perot seemed to take his loss a bit lighter than Brown had, though he was unmistakably unhappy with losing. His concession speech (if one could call it that) was filled with music, particularly a live band playing whichever songs that Perot instructed them to. One could almost mistake it for a victory celebration with the dancing that was going on onstage and with the enthusiasm of the crowd despite being in defeat. Perot’s actual speech was short, but he thanked everyone who had come out to make his historic campaign possible and encouraged them to remain politically active and to work to create change in America. There had been rumors that Perot was being considered for a position in President Bush’s cabinet, although later events would prove that to not be the case. Perot had not stated what he planned to do after the election going forward.

Corbis-0000280849-001.jpg

Now that the reactions of the candidates and the developments within their immediate lives have been examined, we can move on to the actual election results. Beginning with the congressional races, the Democrats wound up gaining eight seats in the House of Representatives, and managed to gain two new Senators (Russ Feingold in Wisconsin, Diane Feinstein in California) as well as holding onto a Senate seat after a very close race in Georgia, where Senator Wyche Fowler managed to win re-election over his Republican opponent, Paul Coverdell. Their only loss was Terry Stanford in North Carolina, whose campaign had been plagued by problems of its own from the beginning. This pickup of seats in the Senate and the House is attributed to disproportionate spending by the DNC. With Jerry Brown refusing to accept large monetary donations, the DNC had limited it’s spending on his Presidential campaign. They attempted to get him to change his mind, but Brown was stubborn and refused to change. After a few attempts, they gave up. In secret, they had already written off the Presidential election as a loss to Bush, and focused their efforts on their congressional races, where they had a chance at doing better. It turned out to be a strategy that paid off. While they had not stopped spending on Brown’s behalf altogether (they had to keep up appearances of a party with confidence in it’s candidates) they didn’t spend as much as they had in previous presidential elections on the actual presidential candidate.

attachment.php

As for the results of the Presidential election itself, George Bush was the overwhelming winner. He came in first place in the popular vote, and finished with 335 electoral votes, more than enough needed to win the General Election. In second place was Jerry Brown, who managed to carry only a few states to get a total of 199 electoral votes. In a surprisingly strong third place was Ross Perot, who came in a close third to Brown in the popular vote, with only about 200,000 votes separating the two men. What makes this election especially notable is that it was the first time since the 1968 Presidential election that a third-party candidate had legitimately won a state. Perot carried Maine by a startlingly large margin, receiving 41% of the vote while Brown and Bush finished with 33.2% and 25.8% respectively. Thus, Perot was awarded a grand total of four electoral votes for the 1992 election. Although he placed nowhere near the two major party candidates despite the valiant efforts of his many enthusiastic supporters and volunteers, he was on the scoreboard. And to many Perot supporters, that was a feeling of triumph. It was also a moment of establishment of legitimacy, as Perot’s campaign turned out not to be a waste after all. Even if it was a small victory, they would take what they could get.

Corbis-AAFZ001432.jpg

With President Bush’s re-election secured, the rest of 1992 seemed not to matter at all. The nation celebrated the end of yet another rough campaign season and returned to business as usual. Part-time political activists either went back home or on to their next crusade while the politicians they elected prepared to either return to Washington, or visit it for the first time. After a long and exhaustive 1992, many wondered what the next year would bring. And hardly anybody could wait to find out.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm...could we see President Quayle after Walsh unseals the indictments?
And what would Bush or Quayle do when Hussein Kamil defects in 1995?
 
As someone whos live din Maryland there whole life, I dont see any way in hell bush could even plausibly win Maryland, actually I think Brown could have won it by a fair margin.

Other than that though the map looks pretty good nice TL.
 
Top