Is this Alternate U.S. Presidents list Possible?

dw93

dw93

41. George H.W. Bush (R-TX)/ J. Danforth Quayle (R-IN): 1989-1997

42. Mario M. Cuomo (D-NY)/ Dorothy Ann Richards (D-TX): 1997-2005

43. John E. "Jeb" Bush (R-FL)/ Thomas J. "Tom" Ridge (R-PA):2005-2009

44. Birch E. "Evan" Bayh III (D-IN)/ Christopher J. Dodd (D-CT): 2009-2017

The POD is that George H.W. Bush wins a very narrow re election victory. Bill Clinton sits the election out, Jerry Brown gets the nomination, and Ross Perot still runs in 1992 TTL.
 
Electric Monk

Electric Monk

Alas, Cuomo was done by then (setting aside Jerry Brown of all people getting the nomination). Even if Bush was in the White House, he was doomed in New York and thus doomed for a 1996 Presidential run. Hamlet's time was 1988 or 1992. You could probably finagle most of the rest though.
 

Octosteel

Electric Monk said:
Alas, Cuomo was done by then (setting aside Jerry Brown of all people getting the nomination). Even if Bush was in the White House, he was doomed in New York and thus doomed for a 1996 Presidential run. Hamlet's time was 1988 or 1992. You could probably finagle most of the rest though.
Click to expand...

Why was he doomed in New York. Bush staying in office surely means he doesn't lose reelection in 1994, no?
 
Electric Monk

Electric Monk

Octosteel said:
Why was he doomed in New York. Bush staying in office surely means he doesn't lose reelection in 1994, no?
Click to expand...

Doesn't really matter, although I admit I was being slightly over-the-top in describing him as doomed :). First Bush instead of Clinton applies more to Congress and the Senate at the time, local news (TV & newspapers) much more powerful plus back then Republicans much worse at using the President to whack Governors. Governors can be tarred with the President yes, but in this case New York was very much a local race and Clinton not much of a factor. That said if enough butterflies happen perhaps the Republicans run a way worse campaign and lose narrowly. But winning your term by 1-2% isn't enough to be considered seriously for President, especially when you dicked everybody around in 1992. Or, honestly, even if he won a blow-out race (unlikely, despite the polls at the beginning of the campaign) Hamlet on the Hudson is 4 years older and didn't have the guts to run in 1992, and everybody knows it. I don't think he's tough enough at that point to make it through the primaries (edit: especially with two-term Bush the Democratic smart money is on a moderate, not a liberal).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top