in U.S. in ‘ 76, ‘88, or ‘92, a liberal Democrat wins and has reasonably successful presidency.

Yes, I’d like timeline(s) in which this liberal Democrat is successful at rebuilding the American middle class. Bill Clinton, a centrist Democrat, talked about this, but didn’t or was not able to achieve this (slow erosion of middle class merely paused during his two terms).

But I’m almost equally interested in ways other than economics that liberalism could be successful, and widely viewed as such after two terms (say, with the outgoing president having 60% approval).

Your ideas please.
 

Gerry Ferraro, 1993-2001 ?

Maybe if Geraldine Ferraro runs for the Senate in 1986 against Al D’Amato, and then runs for president six years later.

If she does serve as president from ‘93 to 2001, she’s still likely to be diagnosed with inactive blood cancer (multiple myeloma) in ‘98, which unfortunately was found to have become active in June 2000. All the same, with medication, she lived another ten plus years, going on to the great beyond on March 26, 2011.
 
Last edited:
'92 is possible. The others aren't.

Cuomo could have done your goals. Jerry Brown would have been clinton-like, but less prude/without the faux-southern gimmick so an improvement there, but not up to your POD.
 
Cuomo in 1988 or 1992 could've done this, though 1992 is more plausible IMHO. Having Frank Church or Mo Udall get nominated in 1976 is also a way to get a liberal Democrat in as well, hell have Humphrey announce early that he wasn't running in 1976 and that gives Scoop Jackson the nomination. He was far more liberal than Carter on Domestic Issues at least.
 

dcharleos

Donor
'92 is possible. The others aren't.

Cuomo could have done your goals. Jerry Brown would have been clinton-like, but less prude/without the faux-southern gimmick so an improvement there, but not up to your POD.
Clinton wasn't "faux-southern," ya goof.

Bill Clinton is actually Southern.
 
Cuomo in 1988 or 1992 could've done this, though 1992 is more plausible IMHO. . .
I tend to concur that ‘88 is less plausible, but all the same, let’s say that comes to pass.

Mario Cuomo, 1989-‘97 ?

And interesting for my purposes, let’s say he doesn’t only focus on education as if it will magically replace eroding manufacturing jobs (for it won’t). But he also . . .
 
Last edited:

Fred Harris, 1977-‘85 ?
ANNOUNCEMENT FOR THE PRESIDENCY, JANUARY 11, 1975

“Both the economy and the politics of our country are in deep trouble. Too few people have all the money and power, and most people have little or none. . . ”

“ . . . We must stop the EXXONs and the Safeways from using their monopoly power to squeeze out competitors and then overcharge consumers. The government must stop emptying the pockets of those who have to work for a living in order to subsidize the Lockheeds and the Penn-Centrals. . . ”
This guy is an economic populist, willing to call out corporations by name.
 
Last edited:
That's not how that works.
Well, what if I say, it sometimes works that way? :cool:

I mean, if someone really doesn’t like Bill Clinton, they might well say he’s only pretending to be a good ol’ boy, he’s really a liberal elite do-gooder.

* not sure what’s wrong with being a do-gooder
 
Jesse-Jackson-1988.jpg


'88 is probably impossible, but maybe if Jackson moderates his platform a bit (drops reparations) and gets out in front in '92 early enough to steal some energy from Clinton he can stand a chance.
 
View attachment 562225

'88 is probably impossible, but maybe if Jackson moderates his platform a bit (drops reparations) and gets out in front in '92 early enough to steal some energy from Clinton he can stand a chance.
I like the idea of not being a perennial candidate. That is, skipping ‘88 and then people remembering how good Jackson was in ‘84 (esp. compared to a flat ‘88) and coming back in ‘92.

Maybe if he could put together a top three things to try both those in the middle class and those who aspire to the middle class. And then it’s a matter of being fluid and adaptable during the campaign, and also yourself.
 
EB24F109-E86D-43C2-862B-4E39C3F5C17A.jpeg

John Glenn, 1989-‘97 ?

Maybe he takes a pass on ‘84 and instead runs in ‘88. Now, does Glenn count as a liberal?

If he slows and reverses the slow decline of middle-class jobs, I’m going to count him as plenty liberal enough! I mean, the centrality of the American Dream is an expanding middle class.

And I welcome discussion of whether Glenn is liberal in other regards.

* Ohio had a lot of jobs connected to auto manufacturing, but a more diverse economy than Michigan, and therefore Ohio could potentially lead the way on making the transition? And most probably it’s going to take several somethings to replace the large number of jobs lost in manufacturing.
 
Last edited:
Patricia Schroeder had a groundswell of support in 1988 before she declined to run. Name recognition was hers as was experience after fifteen plus years in the US House of Representatives. Solid liberal credentials via her voting record and her previous work with the National Labor Relations Board and Planned Parenthood.
 
Jackson is maybe the only major Democratic candidate that would be favored to lose in ‘92.
Yes, I think that’s probably baseline. But I’d be interested in how things might change so that Jackson is favored versus Bush in 1992.

For starters, Jackson needs to at least comfortably endorse Mondale in ‘84, hopefully enthusiastically! :cool: And specifically use the word “endorse.” And therefore, be perceived as more of a team player.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I think that’s probably baseline. But I’d be interested in how things might change so that Jackson is favored versus Bush in 1992.

For starters, Jackson needs to at least comfortably endorse Mondale in ‘84, hopefully enthusiastically! :cool: And specifically use the word “endorse.” And therefore, be perceived as more of a team player.
Jackson ‘92’s unlikely victory has nothing to do with internal Democratic politics but with American racial politics. Half of the country disapproved of interracial marriage, let alone a Black President.
 
Patricia Schroeder had a groundswell of support in 1988 before she declined to run. Name recognition was hers as was experience after fifteen plus years in the US House of Representatives. Solid liberal credentials via her voting record and her previous work with the National Labor Relations Board and Planned Parenthood.

Pat Schroeder, 1989-‘97 ?

Planned Parenthood is going to be a negative, because pro-life voters are more in the direction of being single-issue voters than are pro-choice voters. And this is the case even though a majority of voters support safe and legal abortion. [and even though only a small percentage of what Planned Parenthood does is to provide abortion services, still going to be an issue]

Maybe she could also adopt the Mario Cuomo position that a more just society would give low-income women more of a real choice. [and I’d personally add, a more prosperous society with more good jobs!]

And would be interested in other ways Schroeder might address this, as well as many other issues. :)
 
Last edited:
Top