Going Rogue: President Sarah Palin
- Thread starter NickCT
- Start date
Ah well, nothing wrong with mini-TL's. And I liked it.it's gone to the end of her presidency, it's donebut i'm glad you liked it
mini? it took me 9,000 words and 2.5 hours
but thank you anyways, i eally do appreciate
This TL is complete ASB. So in the midst of the worst recession since the Great Depression, with the economy losing 600,000-700,000 jobs a month, John McCain tells the American people his biggest priority is Welfare Reform? He magically repeals the Bush tax cuts with an executive order? Democrats simply go along with his policy proposals even though they have huge majorities in the Congress? At no point do they try to reform Wall Street and the banks? What happens to the auto companies, are they simply allowed to go bankrupt? The 2011 budget contains MASSIVE SPENDING CUTS, and for some reason the Democratic Congress just goes along with it, what? Somehow magically these ideas result in a lower unemployment rate than the OTL, what? For some reason Democrats are 3 times more likely to not vote in the midterm, allowing the party in control of the Presidency to retake the House, even though it's never happened before?
I never said that.
In response to all other accusations, particularly the Welfare Reform, it was set at Welfare Fraud, which would save the government tons of money. Furthermore Obama's #1 priority was health care.
I understand anti-Palin Democrats find this ASB, that's fine, they're entitled to their opinion. I don't think there's anything too outlandish her and I'm not even close to Palin's biggest fan.
because I don't want all of the hours I spent on this project, and all of my other ones, to go to waste I'm planning on revising this timeline. i'm going to be taking in all of the feedback here and I hope to make it more believable, even for the toughest of Palin's critics
Ah. you'll have to excuse me, I've been reading to much of the Anglo American Nazi war lately. As such, my standards have been changing badly.mini? it took me 9,000 words and 2.5 hours
but thank you anyways, i eally do appreciate
Kinda like how pushing for Government Health Care in the middle of the worst recession is ASB isn't it?
"October 14, 2010: New polling suggests that Democratic voters are 3-times more likely to stay home than the Republican voters."
"November 2, 2010: The Republican Party gains forty house seats, enough to just barely give them a majority. "
Yes you did.
No it wouldn't. And Healthcare reform was what Obama ran on, and poll after poll showed it was one of the top 3 most important issues for voters. You're going to make the signature legislation of John McCain's Presidency something that is a minor issue to voters and a drop in the bucket compared to the rest of the budget? And somehow you magically get lower unemployment from all this nonsense.
Obama ran on Healthcare Reform. It was one of the top issues he talked about during the campaign, and at the debates, and was one of the top 3 most important issues for voters that election. And Healthcare reform is a lot bigger and more important than worrying about a small percentage of fraud cases in welfare.
I could give you a hand if you want. I have done a "McCain wins in 2008" scenario before. Just PM me if you are interested.
My point was that when the economy's tanking, pushing for increased Government spending could be considered bad. But lets end this here, I wouldn't want this to get moved to Chat.
In fairness McCain could have won in 2008 if you delay the financial crisis a bit and get rid of the Palin gaffes. The economy in 2010 is going to be struggling whoever's in office which probably gives us an even larger Dem congressional majority. Though things will probably get better by 2012, incumbency fatigue and Palin at the helm would make a re-election near ASB, and 2016 actually ASB.
no one cries fowl when Democrats get 16 years, two people complained in the 2016 Pres. Race thread. It's not ASB, look at the period between Grant and Hoover. There were 3 Democratic Administrations (and 2 were Grover Cleveland)
You have no legitimate economic theory that can back up that claim.
Besides all the other Bats that are hovering around this there is NO WAY U.S. troops could invade Iran so soon after a Declaration of War. Where are they coming from? You haven't had enough time for a build up of heavy forces and light forces are barely going to act as a speed bump. Also if Iran had WMD don't you think some would be flying?
A Democrat win this year would make 2016 a toss-up and 2020 near certain Rep. After a while, people get tired of the same party in the White House and a party hasn't stayed in power for more than 3 terms since Truman.
Massive cuts in the aftermath of a financial bust do not win you votes or make you the champion of a new era of fiscal responsibility. They lead to riots in the streets.
You just have to, you know, look at every other major economy who went through austerity measures during the recession. They are always a vote loser and are very effective in mobilizing the segments of the population that they affect. The assumption that this would have ever passed through a democratic legislature is very unrealistic. The assumption that it results in democrats "staying home" and the republicans getting a massive swing in their favor is even more so: You are going to see "Occupy" and "99%" movements that are much stronger than OTL, and possibly even stronger than the Tea Party movement. This scenario seems completely at odds with how politics behaves.
And it also seems at odds with how economics behave. The "Austerity vs Stimulus" debate, across the world, in every economy, has always been about being able to meet future obligations by either reducing the size of those obligations (Austerity) or trying to have economic/revenue growth be higher than debt growth (Stimulus). You cannot have cuts that will lead to higher economic growth and lower unemployment - it is completely antithetical to how economic policy works.
Cuts *can* work - but they do so at a cost of negative public sector economic growth, higher unemployment, lower consumer spending and a lot of anger on the streets. There's no magic formula.
You just have to, you know, look at every other major economy who went through austerity measures during the recession. They are always a vote loser and are very effective in mobilizing the segments of the population that they affect. The assumption that this would have ever passed through a democratic legislature is very unrealistic. The assumption that it results in democrats "staying home" and the republicans getting a massive swing in their favor is even more so: You are going to see "Occupy" and "99%" movements that are much stronger than OTL, and possibly even stronger than the Tea Party movement. This scenario seems completely at odds with how politics behaves.
And it also seems at odds with how economics behave. The "Austerity vs Stimulus" debate, across the world, in every economy, has always been about being able to meet future obligations by either reducing the size of those obligations (Austerity) or trying to have economic/revenue growth be higher than debt growth (Stimulus). You cannot have cuts that will lead to higher economic growth and lower unemployment - it is completely antithetical to how economic policy works.
Cuts *can* work - but they do so at a cost of negative public sector economic growth, higher unemployment, lower consumer spending and a lot of anger on the streets. There's no magic formula.
I'm not a liberal Democrat, and indeed I'm supporting Romney over Obama in 2012. You should not have suggested indirectly that people that find your TL ASB only because they are holding certain views.
I won't fall into your trap, as I don't see 20 years of GOP rule as ASB given the right circumstances, like assassinations, natural deaths or accidents at the right time. However, the way you get McCain elected isn't convincing at all. Why don't you simply delay the financial tsunami for months, or make Edwards Obama's running mate instead of changing just one or two minor factors that are not significant enough to make McCain winning a higher percentage of votes than GWB?
I find your TL ASB because it's impossible for the ruling party, in the middle of a major economic crisis, to gain that many House seats. Be it 30 or 40 in the 2010 midterms, it's far more than the Democrats' gains in the 1934 midterms. So you think McCain would be that tremendously popular that he could outperform FDR in 1934, Clinton in 1938 and Bush in 2002 mid-term elections? You simply justifying by saying that Dmocrats are more likely than Republicans to stay home instead of voting, what's the reason behind it? And then the flow of the war in Iran shows that this TL is a giant Republican-wank or Palinwank. So it goes on soooooo smoothly? Are you kidding? Can you really differentiate Iran and Iraq?
Interesting read but until Sarah Palin actually demonstrates she is willing to put in the time and work to really want to be President, its totally ASB. I would wonder how she would hold up with the constant scrutiny and demands of the Presidency for she's never shown she has the thick skin needed.