McGovern Nader 72

Zioneer

Banned
I see AH as plausible wish fulfillment. I tell how Obama, my current favorite candidate, would get to the White House in all president lists.

Key word is plausible. It's simply not possible for Obama to become president in all the different scenarios you've posted in.
 

Japhy

Banned
I see AH as plausible wish fulfillment

Those of us who view AH as an academic exercise --- even as a hobby ---, will of course always have a problem with this of course Paul. At the very least there's no particular reason that any of us should find any of your political wish fulfilling fantasies to be entertaining.
 
I still think Nader would gravitate towards the Greens or another left wing party later on. He'd be the bottom half of a presidential ticket who went down to a landslide defeat against a man who would wind up disgraced only a few years later. Even if he was elected to office, I think he'd be to damaged by his defeat to be a viable candidate for the Democrats in 1976. And if he refuses to support the party's later nominees, he'd not keep the support of the Democratic party, and probably not remain in office for long.


I do think this would make him a stronger third party candidate when and if he decided to run later on. Maybe he could get the Greens to five percent and get the matching funds they so desperately sought, leading them to become a stronger party. Likely though, this would have the effect of only increasing the suspicion of Democrats that Nader cost them an election, so we'd see any Nader run lead to the same situation as in our history, where it was good for the Greens in the short term but bad for them in the long term.
 
Key word is plausible. It's simply not possible for Obama to become president in all the different scenarios you've posted in.

Paul could create a timeline where bears do an armed revolt in 1965, and somehow Obama would still win in 2008.
 
I am reading the book Nixonland. I read. something I never read before. oAccording to this book one of the people who turned down George McGovern when he was looking for a replacement for Tom Eagelton was Ralph Nader. sSo how would Nader have done on a ticket that was trying to win? Yes the lost big time but they were trying to win.

Nader would have been a greater drag on the Democratic ticket than Shriver was. Being on the ticket and out there espousing his views would result in Nader being more marginalized in the Democratic party than he was in OTL 1970s. He'd be on the fringe, ala Jesse Jackson and Michael Moore and with no springboard to elected office.
 
Nader would have been a greater drag on the Democratic ticket than Shriver was. Being on the ticket and out there espousing his views would result in Nader being more marginalized in the Democratic party than he was in OTL 1970s. He'd be on the fringe, ala Jesse Jackson and Michael Moore and with no springboard to elected office.

Yes, that's why he declined.
 
That is why I don't see Nader with a political future. Running in 1972, might have been such a negative experience that he does not run in 2000. I know we have disagreement on this thread, but I have always assumed that means Gore wins in 2000. sSo after thinking it over, I found a major butterfly in this TL.
 
That is why I don't see Nader with a political future. Running in 1972, might have been such a negative experience that he does not run in 2000. I know we have disagreement on this thread, but I have always assumed that means Gore wins in 2000. sSo after thinking it over, I found a major butterfly in this TL.

That's not a butterfly, that's direct causation. A butterfly could mean due to differences caused by the entirely different 1972 campaign season Gore never becomes a Senator, runs for governor in in 1982 and becomes president in 1988.
 
That's not a butterfly, that's direct causation. A butterfly could mean due to differences caused by the entirely different 1972 campaign season Gore never becomes a Senator, runs for governor in in 1982 and becomes president in 1988.

And Obama wins his House race in 2002 before getting elected US senator in 2004 and president in 2008.
 
A Nader pick would be seen similar to Goldwater's pick of Miller, though apparently the establishment in that case had thought that Miller might very well have been a boon, having been a rather notable member of the House. Nader would not have such support among the establishment, though slightly more notable among the public, I think.

McGovern does better I think, but only because he doesn't suffer the Eagleton Fiasco.
 
To clarify, Nader was considered as a replacement for Eagleton. The damage had been done, and Nader wanted no part in the McGovern fiasco.
 
Top