No "Republican Revolution" in 1994

with what POD (keeping Bill Clinton President) could the "Republican Revolution" be kept from happening, and what are the ramifications of the Dems staying in power in Washington (and Ann Richards and Mario Cuomo staying Governors)
 
with what POD (keeping Bill Clinton President) could the "Republican Revolution" be kept from happening, and what are the ramifications of the Dems staying in power in Washington (and Ann Richards and Mario Cuomo staying Governors)

I don't know about the rest, but keeping Ann Richards as Governor of Texas is borderline ASB.
 
I don't know about the rest, but keeping Ann Richards as Governor of Texas is borderline ASB.

um not at all, she got 46% of the vote was super popular in Texas, EVERYONE thought she'd win, as did she, facing a no body opponent (had never before run for or held any government office, daddy was president, for a term, 4 years ago) she ran a poor campaign, waiting for Bush to fuck up, he didn't and had Rove, so Bush with Rove in Texas in the best year for the GOP maybe ever, came damn close to losing to her
 
Might Clinton lose in 96? Or it might be closer. In OTL he painted Dole as a carbon copy of Newt but if Newt's not Speaker than he wouldn't be able to use that attack.
 
POD would have to be that Clinton doesn't fuck up his honeymoon by pushing NAFTA first and losing the support of a good number of the Democrats. That, and essentially writing the health care bill with little to no input from Congress.

So I suppose what you have to do is hit health care first. Have Clinton make that choice, to work with the Democratic Congress over health care first, and work out a bill. I'm not sure if a bill gets passed even under this scenario, but it has a much better chance of doing so. If a bill does pass, I think we butterfly away the Republican Revolution altogether in 1994, though the GOP will gain in the deep south and could cost the Democrats the Senate.

Even with that, though, things probably go a bit better for President Clinton. No Government shutdown in 1995 means no Lewinsky scandal, and means that the Democrats probably gain back whatever they lose in 1994 two years later with Clinton's re-election.

Deficit reduction becomes the meme, but is probably not as profound with the Democrats in control of both houses. Likewise, welfare reform is probably also moved forward, but not as far-reaching as OTL. Assuming that the economy is more or less humming along as it was near the end of the Clinton in OTL, and without having to worry about the Lewinsky scandal, Gore probably asks Clinton to campaign for him in 2000 against whoever the Republicans nominate (if the Republican Revolution is avoided, Bush loses to Ann Richards, so I guess the nominee will be McCain) and probably doesn't choose Joe Lieberman as his running mate (he was chosen in part for his DLC leadership and his criticism of Clinton during the Lewinsky affair), opting instead for someone like ATL House Speaker Dick Gephardt or Senator John Edwards of North Carolina.
 
That revolution sure didn't last long. Isn't that the same one with the Contract to America, where congress would amend the Constitution to have term limits on themselves, and to make the Federal government smaller?

If it didn't happen, who would be President in 2000? Al Gore; only if Slick Willy'ss foolin' around didn't make front page, or at the very least not get dragged through the Congress in the late 90s. I find it tragic how the far-right sometimes blames Clinton for not doing anything about Al Qaida. But if he had done it in 1998, all the Republicans might have jumped to their feet and shouted 'wag the dog' at him.
 
um not at all, she got 46% of the vote was super popular in Texas, EVERYONE thought she'd win, as did she, facing a no body opponent (had never before run for or held any government office, daddy was president, for a term, 4 years ago) she ran a poor campaign, waiting for Bush to fuck up, he didn't and had Rove, so Bush with Rove in Texas in the best year for the GOP maybe ever, came damn close to losing to her

Well when you call your opponent a "jerk" in a public forum, it does look bad for you. :rolleyes:
 

MacCaulay

Banned
with what POD (keeping Bill Clinton President) could the "Republican Revolution" be kept from happening, and what are the ramifications of the Dems staying in power in Washington (and Ann Richards and Mario Cuomo staying Governors)

I don't know about the rest, but keeping Ann Richards as Governor of Texas is borderline ASB.

um not at all, she got 46% of the vote was super popular in Texas, EVERYONE thought she'd win

Got to agree with the angel. Jesus lord do I wish Ann Richards had still stayed Governor...


...though I'm sure this isn't what most people are thinking: we'd be out about half a dozen alternate history novels (most of them quite good) from Newt Gingrich. I dislike him as a politician, mostly because he did to the word "conservative" what the conservatives did to the word "liberal." But the Gettysburg trilogy was great, and the December 7th books were good too. I don't think they'd get published if he wasn't "Newt God Damn Gingrich."

And I can't see the Democrats managing to hold onto the Congress in '96. It would've been too much for them.
 
In addition to a successful health care plan you would also need a less polarizing version of the omnibus crime bill. That was almost as big as health care in terms of being controversial and I've heard some political analysts think it played

The GOP would still have made gains. A lot of Southern Dems from conservative districts retired in 94 and the GOP would have gotten those seats anyway. They probably would have gained the Senate in 94, going into Election Night everyone thought the GOP would win the Senate, it was the House that was the real shock.

Clinton is slightly more to the left in OTL but still pretty centrist, and the economy keeps humming along so he wins re-election. Lewinsky is butterflied. In 1998 the Republicans pick up seats in both houses since the dems did well that year thanks to backlash against Starr and co, probably taking back the House if they didn't in 96.

However in 2000 Bush's appeal(if indeed he does win the Governorship in 94, which I say he still does) as " the moral, God-Fearing Christian" doesn't resonate as much, and Gore wins the Presidency(also Elian Gonzalez may get butterflied, ensuring Gore wins Florida with higher Hispanic support). Also without Lewinsky Gore picks a different running mate than Lieberman, possibly Kerry.

Now, let's assume 9/11 or something similar still happens around this time, and that the dot-com bubble crashes around this time(again allowing for butterflies to change some things). In 02 Dems lose both houses if they haven't already, and in 04 Gore loses re-election due to people being tired of the Democrats after 12 years. He could lose it to a number of people including Bush in a rematch, Jeb, McCain, or someone else. This GOP president will lose re-election in 08 due to the economic crisis. Obama's rise will have been butterflied, though he'll still become something significant in politics. Hillary could still emerge, but it may be under different circumstances and with a different reputation(perhaps not seen as controversially due to successful health-care in 94). But I doubt that ITTL she is the Senator from New York, she could run in either Arkansas or Illinois.
 
POD would have to be that Clinton doesn't fuck up his honeymoon by pushing NAFTA first... QUOTE]

I admit that I don't remember the '92 campaign very well, but wasn't NAFTA already a done deal in the eyes of both Bush and Clinton? I know it passed with distinctly bipartisan support AND bipartisan opposition. So I don't really see how Clinton suddenly not pushing NAFTA would prevent the Republican Revolution.

But again, I don't have much depth of knowledge for the early Nineties.
 
POD would have to be that Clinton doesn't fuck up his honeymoon by pushing NAFTA first... QUOTE]

I admit that I don't remember the '92 campaign very well, but wasn't NAFTA already a done deal in the eyes of both Bush and Clinton? I know it passed with distinctly bipartisan support AND bipartisan opposition. So I don't really see how Clinton suddenly not pushing NAFTA would prevent the Republican Revolution.

But again, I don't have much depth of knowledge for the early Nineties.

While there were a few nativists like Pat Buchanan who hated NAFTA, Clinton got the bill passed Congress only because of overwhelming Republican support. 2/3 of the Dem. causus in the House voted against it.
 
A lot of things would have had to have been different to stop the Gingrich revolution. Corruption in the Congress (House bank, House post office, etc) had reached systemic levels and would not have been easily blunted with any conceivable POD that did not also cause other butterflies.

There are a couple of things that might have happened to have blunted the revolution.

First, Clinton does not make some of the mistakes he made in 1993-94 such as pushing for tax increases and overreaching on health care reform. If Clinton had done welfare reform instead he might have entered the mid terms in pretty good shape.

Second, something would have had to have happened to marginalize Newt Gingrich. An early revelation of his martial problems? In any case, no Contract might have also helped to preserve the Dems.

Another wild card, likely ASB change would have been a different Democratic leadership, especially in the House, more reform minded and not satisfied with sitting on forty years of unchallenged power.
 
Top