Is it WAY too cliche to have an Obama/Biden 2012 ticket in a timeline with a 1976 POD?

[VioletRiver]

Before anyone jumps on me, I know that the obvious answer is a resounding YES. I've seen those posts from a certain user on this site that try to converge the timeline so heavily towards an Obama presidency. BUT...hear me out.

My outline for this timeline begins with a Ford '76 victory, followed by a Democratic '80s. So as not to spoil, I will simply say the GOP is in power from 2009 to at least 2013. For reasons that are perhaps only tangentially relevant, I have decided to shift around the timing of the Great Recession.

Obama in my scenario is unable to run for the Illinois US Senate seat as the incumbent Democrat still occupies it. He instead decides to run for Illinois Governor in 2006, succeeding two-term victor Glenn Poshard. Obama chooses not to run in '08 but sees '12 as his chance, coming off the heels of a "GOP recession."

Is this realistic? Was there ever any indication that Obama was interested in becoming a governor rather than a senator? Who are some other potential Democratic candidates in such a scenario where there was no Clinton presidency? I've considered Russ Feingold as an option, suffice it to say I have certain plans for him--he never really expressed much interest in running for president himself.

 

[The Anglo-Dutch Union]

I mean, it's AH. Maybe in your TL Obama is interested in becoming a govenor.

 

[Amadeus]

Biden was 70 in 2012 so I don't think Obama would pick him. FWIW I doubt it would be HRC either since if the Democrats are in charge during the 1980s, Bill Clinton doesn't become President in the 1990s. However Obama could certainly still be a presidential contender due to his speaking abilities.

 

[Derek Pullem]

Is this realistic? Was there ever any indication that Obama was interested in becoming a governor rather than a senator? Who are some other potential Democratic candidates in such a scenario where there was no Clinton presidency? I've considered Russ Feingold as an option, suffice it to say I have certain plans for him--he never really expressed much interest in running for president himself.

Clinton? (either)

 

[VioletRiver]

Clinton? (either)

Right, as @Amadeus pointed out, if the Dems ruled the 1980s, Clinton wouldn't have the same path to the presidency that opened up for him IOTL. He was largely a reaction to the failures of the New Deal Coalition to beat Reagan and Bush. Many prominent Dems chose not to run in 1992 because of Bush's approval rating following the Persian Gulf War. At least in theory, he just doesn't fare as well during the primaries in a different political environment.

 

[Amadeus]

Right, as @Amadeus pointed out, if the Dems ruled the 1980s, Clinton wouldn't have the same path to the presidency that opened up for him IOTL. He was largely a reaction to the failures of the New Deal Coalition to beat Reagan and Bush. Many prominent Dems chose not to run in 1992 because of Bush's approval rating following the Persian Gulf War. At least in theory, he just doesn't fare as well during the primaries in a different political environment.

I think in this scenario where the GOP is in power from 1969 to 1981, the Dems are likely to keep the White House at least until 1989, probably 1993 if the economy is good in 1988. In fact if the 1990 recession is butterflied or the Democrats have a popular response to it, they could win again in 1992 as the Republicans were initially expected to. But either way Bill Clinton won't have the same window of opportunity that opened up IOTL, and the 1990s to the 2000s will be a Republican decade.

 

[HelloThere]

Why not come up with an American politician who IOTL didn't rise above local/state-level? I always like to be introduced to TL-characters who I don't know in reality. Especially Obama, Biden and Trump were and are so much discussed in the last years that I like TLs as a break from them.

 

[Hcira1]

I don't want this to sound rude whatsoever, but I would like to ask that if you're making this TL, please don't make it an outright democrat/leftist wank. Imo, its no fun to read a TL when you know that one side is always gonna catch every break and come out on top.

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

Dems will probably keep the white house until 1996/2000/2004 in the ATL so 2012 is barely possible for them to come back after the republicans have 8 years.

 

[VioletRiver]

I don't want this to sound rude whatsoever, but I would like to ask that if you're making this TL, please don't make it an outright democrat/leftist wank. Imo, its no fun to read a TL when you know that one side is always gonna catch every break and come out on top.

I don't consider that rude, I think it's a reasonable request. (In all honesty, this whole Obama consideration is only ONE potential scenario that I can see unfolding, I still have a lot to flesh out between 1976 and the 2000s.)

I've actually made a concerted effort to make sure this timeline does not serve purely as ideological wish fulfillment for my admittedly leftist views--because obviously one side won't always win in perpetuity, there will always be opposition and pendulum swings and things like that. I do want to make a realistic timeline where a couple of the main themes are 1) there happens to be no Reagan presidency and 2) the US is in a better position to achieve at least *some* more progressive goals, like universal healthcare.

While we're here, not to totally change the subject, but I'm curious what people's thoughts are on whether a Ford '76 victory could lead to electoral reform, such as the Bayh amendment to abolish the Electoral College, say if the Democrats had more Senate seats after the alternate '78 midterms. (That part is wish fulfillment, in part, but we were just so damn close to electoral reform in the late 70s.) Being that the two major parties were less ideologically polarized back then, I wonder if a handful of Republicans from large states could be brought on board for something like that.

 

[Grey Wolf]

Well Biden has been around for a long time, so it's not at all unlikely he might appear in such a role. 70 is not that old to be running for office

Obama is more complicated, a product of his time, and then combining him with Biden in an ATL is even less likely

 

[Gillan1220]

Due to the amount of butterflies, it is difficult to determine if Obama will even run.