WI: Ann Richards Beats George W Bush in 1994

As the tin says, what if Ann Richards defeats GWB in the 1994 Texas gubernatorial race and thereby wins reelection? Obviously this means the Democrats are able to stay in power just a little bit longer in Texas instead of becoming endangered. But how well can they continue to do without the rise of GWB in politics?
 
McCain probably wins in 2000 and stays the hell out of Iraq. Afghanistan probably goes to hell, the GOP probably wins in '02 and '04 but not by as much, and McCain gets the poison pill of the 2004 election. The economic crisis probably isn't as bad, and "hope and change" isn't enough to get Obama the nomination. Hillary wins, tries to clean things up, but is hard to work with and utterly uninspiring and is voted out in 2012 for Romney.

Trump tries to challenge Romney in 2016 and fails, and Romney is re-elected. Romney reforms health care much as he did in Massachusetts, and Trump becomes something of a pundit and harsh critic of Romney.
 
McCain probably wins in 2000 and stays the hell out of Iraq. Afghanistan probably goes to hell, the GOP probably wins in '02 and '04 but not by as much, and McCain gets the poison pill of the 2004 election. The economic crisis probably isn't as bad, and "hope and change" isn't enough to get Obama the nomination. Hillary wins, tries to clean things up, but is hard to work with and utterly uninspiring and is voted out in 2012 for Romney.

Trump tries to challenge Romney in 2016 and fails, and Romney is re-elected. Romney reforms health care much as he did in Massachusetts, and Trump becomes something of a pundit and harsh critic of Romney.
I wouldn't say that McCain wins, he only got second because all of the other serious competition (Alexander, Dole) dropped out before Iowa, leaving only him and people like Alan Keyes in the race. Many more people would run, like Jack Kemp, John Engler, Connie Mack, Frank Keating, or John Ashcroft. On top of that, Alexander and Dole would have a much better showing.
 
McCain probably wins in 2000 and stays the hell out of Iraq. Afghanistan probably goes to hell, the GOP probably wins in '02 and '04 but not by as much, and McCain gets the poison pill of the 2004 election. The economic crisis probably isn't as bad, and "hope and change" isn't enough to get Obama the nomination. Hillary wins, tries to clean things up, but is hard to work with and utterly uninspiring and is voted out in 2012 for Romney.

Trump tries to challenge Romney in 2016 and fails, and Romney is re-elected. Romney reforms health care much as he did in Massachusetts, and Trump becomes something of a pundit and harsh critic of Romney.
Al Gore anyone?
 
Al Gore anyone?

McCain was a better matchup than Bush. Bush winning was a consequence of a lot of crap breaking right for him. McCain, assuming he gets the nod, wins a little more comfortably.

Of course, I could see Gore beating a number of other contenders. He probably beats Ashcroft, who seems like he's about as charismatic as a dead mole, and guys like Jack Kemp had a chance back in the day but probably wasn't beating Gore.
 
McCain probably wins in 2000 and stays the hell out of Iraq. Afghanistan probably goes to hell, the GOP probably wins in '02 and '04 but not by as much, and McCain gets the poison pill of the 2004 election. The economic crisis probably isn't as bad, and "hope and change" isn't enough to get Obama the nomination. Hillary wins, tries to clean things up, but is hard to work with and utterly uninspiring and is voted out in 2012 for Romney.

Trump tries to challenge Romney in 2016 and fails, and Romney is re-elected. Romney reforms health care much as he did in Massachusetts, and Trump becomes something of a pundit and harsh critic of Romney.

Why would McCain, one of the most aggressive neocons in the senate stay out of Iraq? If anything he would have attempted to expanded the war to Iran or even Syria.
 
He probably runs again in 1998, just like OTL. W might take another crack in 1998 as well. Just means neither is a presidential candidate in 2000 ( or 2004 if MaCain is the incumbent).

Would be interesting if none of the Bush clan succeeded after Pappy Bush's failed reelection campaign
 
Removing Bush doesn't mean McCain gets a free path to the nom. Like others mentioned, Bush cleared the field, so if you remove him, his voters may prefer a more (1999) mainstream Republican over McCain.
 
Removing Bush doesn't mean McCain gets a free path to the nom. Like others mentioned, Bush cleared the field, so if you remove him, his voters may prefer a more (1999) mainstream Republican over McCain.

Who do you think would have run if Bush hadn't cleared the field?
 
Who do you think would have run if Bush hadn't cleared the field?
I wouldn't say that McCain wins, he only got second because all of the other serious competition (Alexander, Dole) dropped out before Iowa, leaving only him and people like Alan Keyes in the race. Many more people would run, like Jack Kemp, John Engler, Connie Mack, Frank Keating, or John Ashcroft. On top of that, Alexander and Dole would have a much better showing.
 
That's what I get for not scrolling back to the top of my own thread.

Who do you think is likely to win if all of those people are running? Or do we end up with a Dark Horse candidate running when it's packed like Trump
While I'm very tempted to go with Engler, as his brand of conservatism is almost identical to Dubya's, it would most likely be Alexander. The GOP wouldn't be ready for a woman, and Alexander was extremely popular back in Tennessee.

As for Richards herself, she would be too old for the Democrats in 2000 (the party was obsessed with a youthful image back then), and the field would still be dominated by Gore, but she could make a great VP pick. Charismatic, liberal, from the electorally rich Texas and a redo of Mondales gamble back in '84, you can't go wrong with that. And, I doubt Gore would be too worried about geographical balance, seeing how '92 turned out.

The only possible issue is that Gore was a near paranoiac about not rocking the boat, and even for all her credentials, Richards would be seen as a surprising choice.
 
Assuming Jeb also loses in Florida - the field would have opened up significantly had Bush not been there. Post-impeachment the party establishment really wanted to exclude the Congressional wing as much as possible, and Republican governors especially coalesced readily around Bush's huge establishment standing. There's just not going to be anyone to clear the field like Bush did.

John Ashcroft was interested in running and looked like a potentially strong candidate, but he was up for re-election in 2000 and Bush looked unbeatable, so he wisely passed. (He lost anyway to the deceased Mel Carnahan, though narrowly)

As noted above, John Engler (Who was given serious consideration as Dole's running mate in 1996) and Frank Keating might also have ran. But someone like John Ashcroft would be pretty damn strong in Iowa with evangelical caucus-goers.

I don't see McCain winning the nomination at all - IOTL he was really powering his bid on a lot of independent and even Democratic support from the open primary in New Hampshire, (Also Michigan, IIRC, but I may be misremembering that.) and actual Republican voters stayed pretty keenly with Bush. The party wasn't really divided. Also, John McCain was at peak John McCain and wasn't too circumspect about what he said. I think he'd be as just as longshot ITTL as he was IOTL.

I think the most likely outcome is an Ashcroft-Gore contest. I think the term for that is 'interestingly boring'.
 
Assuming Jeb also loses in Florida - the field would have opened up significantly had Bush not been there. Post-impeachment the party establishment really wanted to exclude the Congressional wing as much as possible, and Republican governors especially coalesced readily around Bush's huge establishment standing. There's just not going to be anyone to clear the field like Bush did.

John Ashcroft was interested in running and looked like a potentially strong candidate, but he was up for re-election in 2000 and Bush looked unbeatable, so he wisely passed. (He lost anyway to the deceased Mel Carnahan, though narrowly)

As noted above, John Engler (Who was given serious consideration as Dole's running mate in 1996) and Frank Keating might also have ran. But someone like John Ashcroft would be pretty damn strong in Iowa with evangelical caucus-goers.

I don't see McCain winning the nomination at all - IOTL he was really powering his bid on a lot of independent and even Democratic support from the open primary in New Hampshire, (Also Michigan, IIRC, but I may be misremembering that.) and actual Republican voters stayed pretty keenly with Bush. The party wasn't really divided. Also, John McCain was at peak John McCain and wasn't too circumspect about what he said. I think he'd be as just as longshot ITTL as he was IOTL.

I think the most likely outcome is an Ashcroft-Gore contest. I think the term for that is 'interestingly boring'.

Maybe the VP choices will make it interesting
 
Top