Cuomo would lose. The Bush people can paint him with some accuracy as the liberal Republicans claimed Clinton was. Perot's support is likely capped out or he hurts Cuomo more than he did Clinton because there is now a sharper left right and center contrast among the candidates running.
I don't know too much about politics around this time, but since I'm the OP, I'll give it my best shot, using Wikipedia to help me.
1. Yeah, he'd likely go for a Southerner, only I'm a bit hesitant to think of Clinton being a choice, because Bill would likely accidentally damage Cuomo's efforts by his affairs and such. I don't think Clinton would stop if he were Vice President.
Gore would be a good choice, and his lack of charisma wouldn't hurt him since Cuomo has a lot of oration skill.
Bentsen might be an effective choice, being a conservative Texan Democrat, which would mollify swing voters wary of Cuomo's liberalism.
By Nunn, do you meanLouie B Nunn? I'm not sure he'd be a good choice, seeing as how he was a Republican and all.
So the best choices are Bentsen, Clinton, and Gore. I think Bentsen would be the most pragmatic choice, but I don't think Cuomo would go for pragmatism.
2. Healthcare... I think Cuomo would either push for a combo between heavily regulated private care and single-payer healthcare, or just drive straight for single-payer. I don't know how this would be seen by the nation; but I'm guessing that some far-right groups will deplore it as "bringing back the Soviet Union".
3. From the sources I've googled, Cuomo seems to have been deeply against NAFTA and fought against it, while Clinton was for it. If Clinton becomes the VP, that might be a source of friction between the two.
4. No idea about the foreign policy bit, I haven't been able to find sources for his views on that.
5. No idea.
6. I'm assume he'd run again, most presidents do.
I know he'd run again, I'm asking if he'd win.6. I'm assume he'd run again, most presidents do.
1. Bentsen is 72 in 1993, he's too old to be on a ticket. By Nunn Pervez is referring to Sam Nunn, the veteran Blue Dog senator from Georgia.
2. Cuomo will go just as liberal, if not more so than Hillarycare. It will be shot down by Pat Moynihan and the DLC-Blue Dog-GOP alliance just as Hillarycare was.
3. If NAFTA is not ratified that is a huge blow to American credibility in the international community, because they're not willing to keep their word on a treaty that has already been signed. Republicans do not have the votes to pass it on their own in the House, but enough pro-trade Democrats are there to obtain ratification. The Senate will pass it easily.
4. No idea. Cuomo would probably rely heavily on his foreign policy team.
5. Worse than 1994, because Cuomo will be pushing an explicitly liberal program. Gingrich could get in the 240 range in the House. Feinstein could go down, as could Ted Kennedy and Frank Lautenberg. Maybe even John Warner is defeated by Oliver North, though that's a bit less likely given that the state GOP despised North and Warner's solid Blue Dog voting record. Gingrich will have more success than OTL, and if welfare reform is passed it is done over Cuomo's veto.
6. If the economy is doing OK, Cuomo should pull through. However an Alexander/Gramm or Gramm/Alexander ticket could mean trouble, depending on what happens internationally and the Congressional action.
But Bush is having problems with the economy and such, right? Wouldn't that cause a bigger problem for him than his pointing out how liberal Cuomo is?