Reagan Assassinated

Ronald Reagan (R) 1981*
George Bush (R) 1981-88
Bob Dole (R) 1989-92

Al Gore (D) 1993-2000
Jed Bush (R) 2001-03*
Mitt Romney (R) (2003-08)


I see:

Ronald Reagan 1981
George HW Bush 1981 - 1989
Bob Dole 1989 - 1993
Bill Clinton 1993 -2001
George W Bush 2001 - 2009
Barack Obama 2008-

Reagan's death does not butterfly away Gore's son's accident. Gore still does not run for president in 1992. It also does not change the results of the Florida Governor's race in 1994. In 2000, George W Bush is still the senior office holder in his family. Jeb still does not run. It also does not change the economic collapse in 2008, so a Democrat wins. It would not change the selection of the Democratic 2004 Convention Keynote speaker. Obama still wins the nomination in 2008.

It's not going to be the OTL. Just plain and simple. And economically, it will be different. Bush will be more moderate, politically, and economically. This is the man that called supply side economics, which the GOP seems to still be operating on, "Voodoo economics". His administration could temper the religious right, more right wing conservatives, and possibly the neoconservatives, which would have a major effect on the GOP and American politics. Actually, that could help Dole in 1988, since Dole was considered a Conservative Conservative back in his day, at least from what I've heard people say before.
 
Last edited:
Having been thinking about this, here are my thoughts -- in Foreign Policy, Kissinger would be a good bet to replace Haig, and there's likely fiery rhetoric coming from the White House; this, in turn, could well mean Gorbachev becomes more influential earlier, leading to an earlier end to the Cold War (revolutions sweeping Eastern Europe in 1987, for example).

With only the Sec of State going anywhere for the time being, Bush is going to take the first year largely implementing Reagan's promises, including the Kemp-Roth Tax Cuts; additionally, he's going to be reluctant to touch them too soon, meaning OTL's TEFRA (1982) probably doesn't happen, and the initial deficits are even higher (etc). There may be some deficit reduction measures in 1983 or 84, but overall the first term will see even more tax cuts for the rich than Reagan's OTL. The second term will probably look to fixing the budget mess that arises in the first term; not sure if tax code simplification still happens.

So, the 80's TTL sees a combination of Realpolitik and Reagonomics. As to social policy -- on the one hand, I can see the Religious Right making huge waves agitating against Hollywood following the assassination; on the other, I think Bush will stall them more when it comes to entering the corridors of power (eg Edwin Meese and Bill Bennet are unlikely to be in the cabinet TTL). If Dole (I'm gathering he's the likely choice) wins in 88, he may actually feel indebted to the RR as Bush did OTL, giving them a brief window into policy making.

Thus, of the three branches of modern fusionist conservatism, the big losers in TTL are the neocons -- possibly to the point that any remaining FP "idealists" tend toward the Democratic party for the near future. The traditionalists may be somewhat weaker in the 90's and aughts, but they'll likely still rise as a key GOP faction. Republicans will still love tax cuts, and claim that George HW Bush ended the Cold War.

How does that sound?
 
I could see Bush's moderatism leading to a more liberal Democrat elected. How about this?

Ronald Reagan 1981
George HW Bush 1981 - 1989
Gary Hart 1989 - 1993
Bob Dole 1993 -1997
Al Gore 1997 - 2005
George W. Bush 2005 - 2009
Barack Obama 2009 - Present
 
How about having Bob Kasten winning the Republican nomination in 1988 instead of Bob Dole? He may well have more influence with Bush Sr as president in the 1980s. Also, I can't see why George W. Bush would enter politics in TTL. Even if he does, he may well be another person, possessing more centrist views.
 
How about having Bob Kasten winning the Republican nomination in 1988 instead of Bob Dole? He may well have more influence with Bush Sr as president in the 1980s.

Quite possible; I was thinking of Dole in 88, b/c he seemed the likely pick for replacement VP, though NTITAI, Kasten seems like the kind of guy who could have the cred to challenge VP Dole in a primary...
 
Quite possible; I was thinking of Dole in 88, b/c he seemed the likely pick for replacement VP, though NTITAI, Kasten seems like the kind of guy who could have the cred to challenge VP Dole in a primary...

Dole would under no conditions be Vice President under George Bush. The two had a.............tense relationship so to speak. If anything he would pick Representative Jack Kemp; he was fairly well known by that time, a darling of the Reagan Conservatives, and also from the New York, helping Bush there come '84.​

Bush will loose in 1984

Doubtful. It certainly wouldn't be the (49) state landslide it was but the state of the economy alone would grant Bush a good leg up over any Democratic challenger. And if that challenger is Walter Mondale, forget about taking the White House that November.​
 
Another List

Ronold Reagan 1981
George Bush 1981-1985
Gary Heart 1985-1993
Steve Forbes 1993-2001
Patty Murray 2001-2009
Colin Powell 2009-2017



Soviet Leaders

Micheal Gorbachev (General Secretary of the Soviet Union) 1985-1991
Micheal Gorbachev (President of the Soviet Union) 1990-1995 (Retired)
Valdmire Ivashko 1995-2004 (Retired)

Gennadiy Seleznyov
2004-Incubment


The Soviet Union would succeed in salving it's self and the socialist system while allowing multiple parties in elections. As the USSR recovered into the late 90's boom the CPSU recovered from initial shocks and became genuinely popular in Russia. Through considerable opposition is apparent by the UPLM (Union for a Popular Liberal Movement and the Greens.

 
Bush's son was having dinner with Hinkley's dad that night. Leftist and Rightist conspiracy theorists would have a field day. Perhaps some of the far right might even try and challenge Bush?
 
It was Ronald Reagan who personally pushed for the afgan rebels to get Stingers. The more "reasonable" people were afraid to let such advanced weapons into the hands of islamists.

Now better AA weapons would still have been flowing, but not nearly as good.

End result.

The SOviets win in Afganistan. (Rural Afganistan would be a nearly deserted graveyard)

Without this lose the Soviets still have the record of never losing.

Thus when Solidarity shows up, the Soviets, instead of having a defeated worn up army, thinks they have a battle tested victorious army.

Bush doesn't support the union, and Poland tries to crush the protests.

MMmm, not sure what happens next.
 
It was Ronald Reagan who personally pushed for the afgan rebels to get Stingers. The more "reasonable" people were afraid to let such advanced weapons into the hands of islamists.

Now better AA weapons would still have been flowing, but not nearly as good.

End result.

The SOviets win in Afganistan. (Rural Afganistan would be a nearly deserted graveyard)

Without this lose the Soviets still have the record of never losing.

Thus when Solidarity shows up, the Soviets, instead of having a defeated worn up army, thinks they have a battle tested victorious army.

Bush doesn't support the union, and Poland tries to crush the protests.

MMmm, not sure what happens next.

About what happened in OTL, likely. It's important to note that there is really very little evidence that the Soviets planned on invading Poland as it was, the comments by the Polish government aside. Budapest had not done any wonders for the Soviets image throughout the world. However, if there is even an possibility of an invasion, you simply get the Polish military coup of OTL.
I'm reminded of the story of a news reporter asking a Polish general what would have happened is the Soviets had invaded in the 80s. "First we would have put down the protesters", he said, "and then we would have beaten the Russians like we did in '19. Business before pleasure."
I have read from a few sources that, had the coup not occured, the Soviet leadership was willing to cut Poland loose had Solidarity assumed power. A sort of "oh? You think you dont need us? Well, go on and try. You'll come crawling back!" Approach.
On a final note, I think you are really overestimating the Soviets capabilities in Afganistan.
 
About what happened in OTL, likely. It's important to note that there is really very little evidence that the Soviets planned on invading Poland as it was, the comments by the Polish government aside. Budapest had not done any wonders for the Soviets image throughout the world. However, if there is even an possibility of an invasion, you simply get the Polish military coup of OTL.
I'm reminded of the story of a news reporter asking a Polish general what would have happened is the Soviets had invaded in the 80s. "First we would have put down the protesters", he said, "and then we would have beaten the Russians like we did in '19. Business before pleasure."
I have read from a few sources that, had the coup not occured, the Soviet leadership was willing to cut Poland loose had Solidarity assumed power. A sort of "oh? You think you dont need us? Well, go on and try. You'll come crawling back!" Approach.
On a final note, I think you are really overestimating the Soviets capabilities in Afganistan.


Poland happened during/after the trauma of Afganistan so I would expect more trepidation from the unions and more confindence from the Politburo.

And the Soviets were doing quite a number on the rebels before the stinger gave them a reply to the Hinds.

Look up some of the damage or refugee numbers from that time. THe Soviets were basically committing genocide. I especially like the bombing of irrigation systems. Real military targets there.:(
 
Dole runs at some point after Bush regardless of whether or not he's VP. Any GOP nominees in that period would have to be capable of beating Dole in the primary, AKA Forbes with some butterflies, or Colin Powell.
 
Dole runs at some point after Bush regardless of whether or not he's VP. Any GOP nominees in that period would have to be capable of beating Dole in the primary, AKA Forbes with some butterflies, or Colin Powell.

Either would be good for different reasons.
 
Dole runs at some point after Bush regardless of whether or not he's VP. Any GOP nominees in that period would have to be capable of beating Dole in the primary, AKA Forbes with some butterflies, or Colin Powell.

Powell's unlikely in 88 w/o a Persian Gulf equivalent, and Forbes doesn't strike me as any more likely TTL in 88 than OTL in 2000. Maybe Kemp, esp if he gets tapped for VP...
 
Top