Emmanuel Macron if he didn't win, seeing as he's just such a weird, self-absorbed person
Trump is an obvious one
Eeerh. No. Trump is alt-right, far-right, he would make Marine le Pen (or even his father) blush and looks like moderates. On the French political landscape, Trump would be at the right of the FN, somewhere amid fringe nutjobs like Jacques Cheminade, Robert Menard, or François Asselineau.
Think what you want of Macron he is NOT a populist far-right nutjob.
Obvious one, perhaps, but Bill Clinton. His convention speech in 1988 was a snoozer - a real dud that stands out given his later reputation as Mr. Charisma. So if Cuomo or some other more serious contender decides that he's going to challenge Bush in 1992 and Clinton's indiscretions come out more or less on schedule and wreck his campaign that year I can see a much, much different career trajectory for OTL's 42nd President. Consider: Clinton won't end up in Cuomo's cabinet or on his ticket because of the baggage he carries with him from his personal life, so he stays in Arkansas. Meanwhile, details about the Whitewater Controversy still bubble up, brought to the FBI's attention by Clinton's presidential run. By the mid-1990's Governor Clinton, along with his wife Hillary, Lieutenant Governor Jim Guy Tucker, and associate David Hale, are neck-deep in a federal investigation. Whatever the outcome of that investigation, Clinton will forever be remembered (to the extent he's remembered at all) as a skirt-chasing, corrupt, southern good old boy politician who couldn't hack it on the national scene.
Alt-right is primarily a measurement of social issues, and the main point of comparison I made (that wasn't branding, which doesn't mean much) was their tax policies, which both favor the extremely wealthy. You seem to be putting all policy issues on the same left-right spectrum, which is flawed, to say the least.
Winston Churchill
Well, he ran as a leftist and governed as a centrist. In ordinary times, that might have washed, but in the austere teens, it was bound to infuriate, hence the rise of Melenchon.François Hollande, obviously. He was president, and one of the least corrupt (he is really a Gandhi in comparison to Chirac, Mitterrand or even Sarkozy)
Yet in 2017 he managed to sink the PS to a lower bottom than Mitterrand did in 1993 (30 deputies vs 70 over 577)
Well, he ran as a leftist and governed as a centrist. In ordinary times, that might have washed, but in the austere teens, it was bound to infuriate, hence the rise of Melenchon.
Yes, that's true. I hadn't considered it. Hollande made the PS toxic so that even a genuine leftist, Benoit Hamon, was absolutely drubbed. That has its irony too.Depressing irony that one of his flunkies managed to get elected to replace him, with the same policy direction pursued more vigorously.
No one has yet mentioned the current example of Theresa May who has imploded.Are there any Tory cabinet ministers who aren't disasters at the moment? Blair will become a joke if he tries the third party scheme. He doesn't seem to know when to leave the stage.
Margaret Thatcher is known only for taking milk from schoolchildren and having a screechy voice.
Depressing irony that one of his flunkies managed to get elected to replace him, with the same policy direction pursued more vigorously.
Yes, quite so. Perhaps if LG had tried a new party in the 30s with his large fund from selling peerages. He often alluded to it, but never went forward.Well, again, I feel like Blair is already a joke, and May is doomed to such as well. The question is what non-doomed politicians could have become laughingstocks. Lloyd-George or Poincare if WWI had been lost, say.