Nightmare Presidential Election

McGovern v. Goldwater, Round Two

How would this work out as a modern McGovern v. Goldwater?

RFK Jr/Nancy Pelosi (D)
Dick Cheney/Newt Gingrich (R)

I will not comment except to say that (R) is my choice. Forgetting for a moment the legal troubles of the Democratic candidate, not to mention the vaccine problem as well as the former Veep's health issues. Remember, ideological symmetry on tickets might not be as successful as Clinton/Gore or Nixon/Agnew. As a Canadian, expats must vote GOP if you want NAFTA to survive the first 100 days...

(Google Jenny McCarthy, water supply and his name and you'll see why)
 
Last edited:
Bump. No one wants to accept the challenge? What are the effects, besides *highly regulated* EPA regs of Dem victory? Not to mention a quick Iraq withdrawal. Here are the results. Unfortunately Bush took his toll...

genusmap.php




(D) Robert F. Kennedy Jr/Nancy Pelosi: 278 ECV, 55.3% PV
(R) Dick Cheney/Newt Gingrich- 260 ECV, 44.7% PV

Incumbent President: George W. Bush (Republican)
President-elect: Robert Kennedy Jr. (Democratic)
 
Last edited:
I don't know what RFK Jr. is doing there. He has nothing going for him except his name. The other three, for all their flaws, are at least recognized as political heavyweights. It's even unfair to McGovern to compare him to RFK Jr. At least McGovern was a US Senator when he ran.

You might put someone like Barney Frank at the head of the Democratic ticket.
 
First of all, Barney Frank is unelectable for ahem, *other non-political reasons*. Secondly, how much do you really hate Cheney? Is he that bad? With the partial, controversial exception of George W. Bush, dynasties go sour after the first generation. Be it Canadian businesspeople (Steinberg catfight, Eaton's, Birks) or American political ones, it is unescapable. Lastly, I'd be curious to see a possible TL. What does he have going for him: He isn't Bush/Cheney/Palin.

Do not attempt outside the simulator of AH. com. Significant tax increases and Priuses in every driveway may result.
 
Last edited:
First of all, Barney Frank is unelectable for ahem, *other non-political reasons*. Secondly, how much do you really hate Cheney? Is he that bad? With the partial, controversial exception of George W. Bush, dynasties go sour after the first generation. Be it Canadian businesspeople (Steinberg catfight, Eaton's, Birks) or American political ones, it is unescapable. Lastly, I'd be curious to see a possible TL. What does he have going for him: He isn't Bush/Cheney/Palin.

Do not attempt outside the simulator of AH. com.

Personally, I don't hate Cheney at all. I think he has a great deal of common sense. But he was a very, very unpopular Vice President. Just because I like someone does not mean the majority agrees with me. I voted for the Constitution Party candidate for Senator in 2004 in PA (otherwise it was Specter vs. a liberal Democrat, which is redundant). Only 4% of my fellow citizens agreed with my impeccable judgment.
 
Sorry if I offended you, my fellow conservative. I meant the Dems here. I wanted to see what happened if the most vocal militantes, as we call them here, are nominated by their respective parties. Assuming the lengthy (to say the least) record is butterflied somehow, how would this take place and what would be the consequences of these Dems staying till 20/01/17? TL anyone?
 
Last edited:
Sorry if I offended you, my fellow conservative. I meant the Dems here. Agreed on Cheney. He is quite unpopular, though good at his job. I wanted to see what happened if the most vocal militantes, as we call them here, are nominated by their respective parties. Assuming the lengthy (to say the least) record is butterflied somehow, how would this take place and what would be the consequences of these Dems staying till 20/01/17? TL anyone?

You didn't offend me at all. :D

Personally, I think if you really wanted the red-hots to run against each other, you could have Tom Coburn leading the GOP ticket, maybe with Michelle Bachmann for VP; for the Dems you could have Barbara Boxer for President with Gerrald Nadler for VP.

Talk about a choice and not an echo! :eek:
 
Let's keep it with well-known people under 70 years old. When I have more free time, I'll write a TL on this. Hillary and Obama, though regular lib Dems, make bipartisan appointments, listen to other points of view, and govern with moderation. Pelosi and RFK Jr don't fit any of those criteria except ideologically. The closure role, if changed to 50+1, would be in constant use. Full throttle on liberal social engineering, once the economy is fixed.
 
Let's keep it with well-known people under 70 years old. When I have more free time, I'll write a TL on this. Hillary and Obama, though regular lib Dems, make bipartisan appointments, listen to other points of view, and govern with moderation. Pelosi and RFK Jr don't fit any of those criteria except ideologically. The closure role, if changed to 50+1, would be in constant use. Full throttle on liberal social engineering, once the economy is fixed.


I hate to sound like one of those liberals after the 2004 election but ... if that happened, I'd move to Canada. :D
 
TG I'm Canuck. Hillary will be the Deputy President, with Pelosi in charge of legislative business. Similar to RFK/LBJ in the JFK years. As the President and his deputy seem to have a good personal relationship (even after that idiotic remark this time last year), this will minimize friction. If she and Bill can land a decent economic team, it could be slightly better than Carter. And only just. All Republicans can move to Alberta, our very own Texas with a native son in 24 Sussex. We can butterfly the 22nd (I loathe term limits) and have Bush/Cheney vs. those two. The numbers still show Democratic victory. Then you can have the famed Kennedy vs. Bush election. Do any Democrats/liberals wish to contribute? Your views will help me with a future TL.
 
Last edited:
It's amusing to watch some equate liberal with Democrat, when that hasn't been true since McGovern. Or to see Hillary get called a liberal, something almost guaranteed to get any actual liberal angry.

(I'm neither BTW. I would've actually voted for the 2000 version of McCain, not the 2008 one though.)

It's also amusing to see virtually every ticket chosen here being guaranteed to get Republicans losing by a landslide. This is why they are quickly becoming a regional party. Defending Cheney, for example, when few outside of any increasingly narrow group of NeoCons defend him. If by "doing his job well" you mean guiding a naive President down the road to self destruction and guaranteeing the conservative movement is discredited for a generation, then I might agree with you.
 
I wanted to see when faced with the extremes of both parties, if the GOP or Democrats would win. What I will do at some point is write a TL . It would be nice to have some Democratic feedback from the board. Apologies for falsely accusing someone of liberalism :D. Hillary is not a Blue Dog, but in the mainstream.

P.S. Draft title is "Envigineer-in-Chief: RFK Jr in the W.H."
 
Last edited:
Question.

Why are the traditionally Democratic States Red and the traditionally Republican states Blue when Blue represents the Dems and Red the Reps.
I know that in most of the world blue is used for conservatives and Red for the political left overall, but I though Canada, like the US did'nt follow the standard political color rules.
 
That is how the electoral map site used here works. Up until 2000 that was standard procedure for all the major networks. Considering red-hots are on the Democratic ticket, it's quite fitting :D.
 
In some states, the results are apportioned by Congressional District rather than the usual winner-take-all of the Electoral College. What is your opinion of said election?
 
I'm not sure what the point of this thread is

I'm not particularly ideological. But I can't imagine anyone accusing Dick Cheney of any form of competence. Rather, his history as VP was one of near hysterical overreaction and a persistent refusal to acknowledge any information that did not fit in with whatever his agenda of the moment was.

On the Iraq War, he appears to have utterly corrupted the Intelligence sorting process, opening up the U.S. to misleading or utterly false information. He then compounded this by continuing to trumpet provably false information such as the 'Czechoslovakian Iraq/Al Quaeda' long after it had been exploded.

As a security policy, he advocated the 1% probability strategy. That is, if there is a 1% probability of a threat, it must be treated as a 100% chance. Of course, unless you have infinite resources to chase every imaginary threat, the result is paranoid lunacy.

Finally, on economic policy, there are his 'to the victor goes the spoils' approach, particularly 'deficits don't matter', and the tendency to award no bid contracts to the corporation he formerly headed and in which he retained financial interests.

While it is difficult to fully assess a career as controversial and complex as Cheney's in only a few paragraphs, its my considered opinion that Cheney earned public contempt and distaste. It was well deserved.

That said, I don't have a dog in this fight and I don't care very much. History will record him as a petty, vulgar, vicious little nobody elevated by his own grasping lack of integrity.
 
Top