Is This ATL President List Plausible?

Hey All

I wrote this ATl list of USA presidents yesterday, and I was planning on using it for a DBWI, ut before I did that, I wanted to check with you guys to see if it was plausible. So, here it is...

(R) Gerald Ford,1974-1981
(D) Edward M. Kennedy,1981-1989
(D) Gary Hart,1989-1993
(R) Patrick Buchanan,1993-1997
(D) Mario Cuomo,1997-2005
(R) Elizabeth Dole,2005-Present

So, is this plausible? The POD is Gerald Ford beating Jimmy Carter for President in 1976.
 
In terms of replacing Buchanan, I don't know if you've fleshed it out that far, but the appropriate candidate could have something to do with why Gary Hart was a one-termer. Did he get in trouble for a policy issue, or do you have something in mind related to his personal dealings?

If it's a variation of the monkey business that got him in trouble OTL (heh), then a candidate who can present a stronger moral front may become the Republican frontrunner. If it's got something to do with policy failures, then a gung-ho, get stuff done reformer type would fit the bill better.

It's also worth taking into account which candidates that fill the above slot are most likely to lose to Mario Cuomo in 1997, if changing Hart's replacement doesn't ripple through the remainder of your list.
 
Are their any Popular Republicans in the mid-ninties who could prove to be controversial if elected President? Other than Dan Quayle I mean...;)
 
Not really- none would be controversial with a 1976 POD unless you made them controversial. Perhaps Ted has a nasty divorce while in the White House? ;) Either Ted or Joan is publicly intoxicated, or Ted is "caught in the sack with one of his babes" to quote Tricky Dick.

P.S.: Joan would sometimes be passed out for days due to a hangover from two or more days of binge drinking.
 
Not really- none would be controversial with a 1976 POD unless you made them controversial. Perhaps Ted has a nasty divorce while in the White House? ;) Either Ted or Joan is publicly intoxicated, or Ted is "caught in the sack with one of his babes" to quote Tricky Dick.

I was thinking Gary instead of Ted. :p
 
It would probably hurt Gary more, since he was seen as "clean" and "fresh". Whereas Ted was known in his younger days as "Cadillac Eddie", which had nothing to do with his car.
 
(R) Gerald Ford,1974-1981

Highly plausible given that the 1976 Election was extremely close. Perhaps Carter made another “lusted in my heart for other women” remark and that finished him. Bob Dole would be Vice President from 1977 – 1981.
The Republicans would be saddled with the fall out of the Oil crisis of 1979, stagflation and a generaly lousy economy.

Unless Ford did something radically different than Carter about Iran in the last years of the Shah (I can’t see why he would; his Secretary of State Henry Kissinger was a big fan of the Shah) his Presidency would end with the hostage crisis. Ford may well have followed Kissinger’s advice, and let the Shah follow his inclinations to use force to repress the rebellion in late 1978 and early 1979 (the Shah wanted to but the Carter White House restrained him). The Islamic Revolution would still have occurred, but it would have been far bloodier, with the Revolutionaries blaming “the Great Satan” for the violence. The hostage crisis may have come even earlier than November 1979 and been more intense (i.e. spy trials or executions).

In any event, the crisis (and the economy) could seriously damage a Dole candidacy, depending upon how closely associated he was with Ford’s handling of the crisis.

However, what would Ford’s approach be to the fall of Somoza in Nicaragua? Kissinger was a strong proponent of Somoza’s regime. Instead of the lingering end that actually took place over 1978 – 1979, with the Carter Administration trying to get Somoza to turn power over to a coalition government that would hold elections, could a Kissinger lead State Department (and a Bush lead CIA) have tried a Chilean solution to Somoza’s fall? Would they have used U.S. military force against the Sandinistas?

I think Vice President Dole would run for President in 1980 (OTL Senator Dole actually did, he had a persistent ambition for the job) and he would face Ronald Reagan in the Republican primaries. Reagan would run based on the strength of support for him among the conservative base that first showed-up in his 1976 campaign (as he did in OTL). What is more he would run against the troubled legacy of Ford-Dole (almost an “I told you so in 1976” campaign theme). I think Reagan would win the nomination as he did OTL; Dole couldn’t match him for charisma and he carried Ford’s baggage.

The big question is if Reagan would choose Bush as a running mate. Ford probably would have kept George H.W. Bush as CIA Director past 1977, and Bush wanted the job. In OTL George Bush lobbied President-elect Carter to keep the job, to be like Richard Helms who kept the job despite a change of Administrations in 1969: Ford even recommended Bush to Carter. If CIA Director Bush in anyway had an association with the hostage crisis, and (or) a debacle in Nicaragua, then probably Reagan wouldn’t have even considered him, since Reagan’s campaign would have been premised on a fresh start.

(D) Edward M. Kennedy,1981-1989

A Kennedy-Reagan match-up, now that would have been a race. I can see Kennedy taking advantage of the Iran hostage crisis, the economy and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 in the same way his brother exploited Cuba and “the missile gap” in 1960. However Reagan would be a softer target than Nixon was in 1960, since Reagan opposed Ford in 1976 and couldn’t easily be associated with the failures of the Ford Administration (a primary race against Dole would have made that even clearer).

The question is, could Kennedy outperform Reagan in the October 27 debate? (OTL Carter and Reagan were even in the polls right up until that debate; only when Carter said he consulted Amy on nuclear policy and Reagan brushed him off with a folksy “there you go again” did Carter’s poll numbers begin their death spiral). I bring this up because throughout his OTL Democratic primary challenge to Carter, Kennedy never could explain why he wanted to be President. A lot of Democrats wanted to dump Carter, but couldn’t get behind Kennedy because he didn’t seem to be going anywhere; the dream could well live on, but it required a vision for the 1980’s and Kennedy never offered one.

Not that Kennedy couldn’t win an open nomination, although I think he would have had to battle Walter Mondale and perhaps Birch Bayh and Frank Church for it; I just wonder how he would have performed against Reagan?

(D) Gary Hart,1989-1993

I have a problem with this one. OTL Hart was reckless, and he paid the price for it. Unless there was some major personality change, the same thing (if not the exact same circumstances) would have undone him at some point prior to the nomination (or during the campaign).

(R) Patrick Buchanan,1993-1997

I’ve read four of Buchanan’s books; he is very articulate and has some interesting insights (no I don’t agree with all that he says, but he is worth reading.). That much being said, he comes across as an extremist. His “culture war” speech at the OTL 1992 Republican convention made a lot of Republicans, even those inclined to agree with him, cringe. Maybe he got the nomination, but even George McGovern would have had a good chance of defeating him in the general. (For the same reason Johnson beat Goldwater.)

Don’t forget Clinton won the OTL 1992 election because of the involvement of Ross Perot. Perot was an eccentric to be sure, but he would have had the same debilitating effect on the Republicans (if you look at today’s “tea bag” movement and you compare them to the profile of Perot’s 1992 supporters you can see the similarities). Many Perot voters were middle to low income conservatives who had backed Reagan and didn’t like Bush. Buchanan may have been more of their style politically, but he was nowhere near as folksy as Perot. (I remember the 1992 election; Perot’s one-liners in that year’s debates were a true novelty at the time.)

By the way, what happened to Bill Clinton in this TL? How did he get de-railed?

(D) Mario Cuomo,1997-2005

OK, but I would consider him for 1989 – 1997. I think Cuomo would be a stronger contender to succeed Kennedy in your TL.

A note about the 2000 election (or any other close election your TL generates). Your TL will substantially alter the make-up of the Supreme Court by 2000. If you had an OTL like situation in Florida (or any other state) the outcome would be very different.

(R) Elizabeth Dole,2005-Present

Very interesting choice. Maybe even 1997 – 2005, succeeding Cuomo.

A note about 2008. The financial meltdown was the product of a long process that OTL spanned twenty-five years and whose underlying conditions were enabled by Republicans and Democrats in the White House and Congress. Free trade and market deregulation was a political zeitgeist of the age that transformed policies in both parties. Only something major would have changed that. An EM Kennedy administration (would we have "Kennedy 35" and "Kennedy 39" references?) would have been more liberal and perhaps less eager to deregulate than its OTL Reagan counterpart; but President Ted Kennedy would have been influenced by the economic free traders in his own party as well (some of the most ardent were the “new Democrats” of the decade), and that would have made its way into de-regulatory policy. There also would have been pressure from Congress.

Given the conditions between September and November 2008 almost any incumbent would have been defeated, as occurred OTL in 1932, 1980 and 1992.

Since you are changing the time in executive power for the two parties, how would your timeline affect Congressional elections going back at least as far as 1978? Would the Republicans gain control of the House after 1982? (OTL the Republicans were hurt by the 1982 mid-terms which occurred at the depth of a recession blamed on the Republican administration: at the time Reagan was widely regarded as a one term president [an important point for those who are ready to write-off Obama at this point] How would that have gone with a Democrat in the White House?).
 
I agree as regarding Ted: I think he could beat Reagan, but it requires a different campaign than OTL. Mudd was just the messenger: that he had no message (other than liberal-wanking, which was the opposite of the national mood), no moral credibility after Chap, etc. But that requires a change in the family dynamics: no one wanted to harness the family's combined efforts behind the campaign after LA, no one had worked on the national level in over a decade, etc. Not to mention the younger generation's "death spiral" which Ted failed to halt (quite literally for David IOTL). The Kennedy lustre had gone, and Reagan was still Hollywood tinsel. He'd have to run as a regular Democrat, which doesn't motivate his fanbase (as opposed to the Democratic and US electorate-at-large) enough.
 
Last edited:
Hey All

I wrote this ATl list of USA presidents yesterday, and I was planning on using it for a DBWI, ut before I did that, I wanted to check with you guys to see if it was plausible. So, here it is...

(R) Gerald Ford,1974-1981
(D) Edward M. Kennedy,1981-1989
(D) Gary Hart,1989-1993
(R) Patrick Buchanan,1993-1997
(D) Mario Cuomo,1997-2005
(R) Elizabeth Dole,2005-Present

So, is this plausible? The POD is Gerald Ford beating Jimmy Carter for President in 1976.

Plausibe but not very probable. Gerald Ford nearly got relected and Mario Cuomo never stood but may well have been elected had he done so. It would have probably required either a change in public attitudes or Gary Hart and Teddy Kennedy laying off the women. Possibly if Chappacudick hadn't happened or Kennedy hadn't panicked he might have stood a chance but it effectivelty finished him. Buchanan probably not too much of an ideological Conservative.
 
Okay guys, I've made a few more lists. Let me know what you think.

In this first one, Cuomo fallows Kennedy instead of Hart, and is elected to two-terms.

(R) Gerald Ford, 1974-1981
(D) Edward M. Kennedy, 1981-1989
(D) Mario Cuomo, 1989-1997
(R) Jack Kemp, 1997-2005
(R) John McCain, 2005-2009
(D) John Edwards, 2009-Present

In the second, Cuomo is only elected to one term.

(R) Gerald Ford, 1974-1981
(D) Edward M. Kennedy, 1981-1989
(D) Mario Cuomo, 1989-1993
(R) Jack Kemp, 1993-2001
(R) John McCain, 2001-2005
(D) Howard Dean, 2005-2009
(R) Mitt Romney, 2009-Present

Are either of these plausible?
 
Thru a glass, darkly...

Hey All

I wrote this ATl list of USA presidents yesterday, and I was planning on using it for a DBWI, ut before I did that, I wanted to check with you guys to see if it was plausible. So, here it is...

(R) Gerald Ford,1974-1981
(D) Edward M. Kennedy,1981-1989
(D) Gary Hart,1989-1993
(R) Patrick Buchanan,1993-1997
(D) Mario Cuomo,1997-2005
(R) Elizabeth Dole,2005-Present

So, is this plausible? The POD is Gerald Ford beating Jimmy Carter for President in 1976.
Gerald Ford? Sure, if Nixon resigns a few months earlier, and Agnew flames out sooner as well. Kennedy? His chances died with Mary Jo. The closer he would get to the prize the higher his personal negatives climbed. Gary Hart? Once a cheat, always a cheat. Patrick Buchanan? Only if the Second Great Depression starts in a Democratic Administration two years before Election Day.:eek: Mario Cuomo? Too long from his governorship days. Nationally he'll be half-forgotten. Elizabeth Dole? Not a chance. She'll be too busy taking care of Bob by then.:(
 
Dean and Edwards, no. The others are very plausible. ;)

How are these? :)

(R) Gerald Ford, 1974-1981
(D) Edward M. Kennedy, 1981-1989
(D) Mario Cuomo, 1989-1997
(R) Jack Kemp, 1997-2005
(R) John McCain, 2005-Present


(R) Gerald Ford, 1974-1981
(D) Edward M. Kennedy, 1981-1989
(D) Mario Cuomo, 1989-1993
(R) Jack Kemp, 1993-2001
(R) John McCain, 2001-2009
(D) Evan Bayh, 2009-Present
 
I have to agree that Cuomo is much too late in the original premise. Mid-80s or early 90s were really his best times to run. Butterflies could do stuff, I suppose, but he really was fading as a political force, and even without the loss of momentum that Clinton inevitably brought about '96 is probably at the best on the bubble for a successful Cuomo candidacy.

Kemp is certainly possible, but following with McCain... The right wing is going to want somebody closer to it, and the man is going to be getting on in years. That issue won't be as killer as it would for an '08 or '12 run, but after two terms of an (aging) President Jack Kemp, putting up another older candidate (I'm assuming that McCain is the VP ITTL, as that would aid in the nomination, but either way) is dicey.

Edwards probably is a political nobody, so drop that idea.

Better. I’d go for the incumbent Cumo losing in 1992 due to the recession.

The better part of two decades of changes (most notably no reagan) could remove the recession, or shift it, or...
 
Dean and Edwards, no. The others are very plausible. ;)

Howard Dean governed as a moderate and ran an extremely vigorous campaign. Whether or not you like him, you have to concede that it's not impossible for him to be elected President.

Edwards, on the other hand... no way in hell would he ever be elected.
 
Top