WI: Ann Richards Beats George W Bush in 1994

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 only gained traction because he was the only plausible alternative to Bush in the GOP primaries that year. In a world where Bush doesn't run, you'll probably see more high-profile candidates run, such as Jack Kemp, Thad Cochran, Tom Ridge, George Pataki, etc.
 
McCain only gained traction because he was the only plausible alternative to Bush in the GOP primaries that year. In a world where Bush doesn't run, you'll probably see more high-profile candidates run, such as Jack Kemp, Thad Cochran, Tom Ridge, George Pataki, etc.

Is it possible for McCain to throne the dark horse candidate when the field is split between a bunch of conversatives?
 
Is it possible for McCain to throne the dark horse candidate when the field is split between a bunch of conversatives?

Well, Pataki and Ridge certainly weren't hardcore conservatives. Even someone like Kemp, who held heterodox views on certain social issues for a Republican, could claim the maverick mantle.

Look, the GOP didn't quite clear the field for Bush in 2000 in the same way that the Democrats did for Hillary Clinton in 2016, but it's not an unreasonable analogy. In both years, many of the party's notional top-tier candidates held off on running so the consensus candidate could win - and in both cases, a dark horse candidate did relatively well (McCain in 2000, Sanders in 2016) simply because there was a dearth of credible alternatives to the frontrunner. But saying "no Bush = McCain" is sort of simplistic, because no one would think that, in a world where Clinton didn't run in 2016, that the nomination would've automatically defaulted to Sanders. Folks like Cuomo and Booker and Gillibrand would've run, too
 
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.

Agreed in general. But Gore/Richards brings in more women and maybe makes Texas competitive. Also, if someone gets Gore to get Clinton to campaign for him helps. Getting rid of Ralph "80,000 votes in Florida" Nader helps.

Also, McCain was distrusted by the Republican mainstream for McCain/Feingold, so someone else winning like others suggested makes sense.
 
Last edited:
Agreed in general. But Gore/Richards brings in more women and maybe makes Texas competitive. Also, if someone gets Gore to get Clinton to campaign for him helps. Getting rid of Ralph "80,000 votes in Florida" Nader helps.

Also, McCain was distrusted by the Republican mainstream for McCain/Feingold, so someone else winning like others suggested makes sense.

Maybe the Thorny Rose of Texas is able to convince Gore to use Clinton?
 
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.

muh butterflies

Bush being removed from the political board this early on would have huge effects, to say nothing of Texas being "purple" throughout the 90's.
 
McCain only gained traction because he was the only plausible alternative to Bush in the GOP primaries that year. In a world where Bush doesn't run, you'll probably see more high-profile candidates run, such as Jack Kemp, Thad Cochran, Tom Ridge, George Pataki, etc.

I could see that, sure, but they would have to run a hell of a campaign to beat McCain. If Bush doesn't run, McCain is still the favorite, albeit he's more of a "things can happen and his challengers are no slouches" favorite rather than a prohibitive one. His fate in the general election, assuming he lands the nomination, probably depends on how much worsefor wear he is after surviving the GOP primaries. And given how picking a complete dipshit as his VP torpedoed him in OTL 2008, it also depends some on his running mate.

Agreed in general. But Gore/Richards brings in more women and maybe makes Texas competitive. Also, if someone gets Gore to get Clinton to campaign for him helps. Getting rid of Ralph "80,000 votes in Florida" Nader helps.

Also, McCain was distrusted by the Republican mainstream for McCain/Feingold, so someone else winning like others suggested makes sense.

It is true that Richards would bring in more women. However, given that women vote Democratic anyway and it may hurt Gore in the South (outside Richards' home state of Texas, which probably wouldn't go for Gore even if he picks one of their own as VP anyway) it may not be the boost he's looking for. It may sway Florida, which we all know would be huge, but it still may not be enough.

McCain may have been less trusted by the GOP base, but remember that he has one advantage Bush didn't - he has a ton of cred among moderates and he can work across parties. The tough part is, if McCain loses Florida, he has to make up 24 EVs to get to 270. My suggestion is Pennsylvania, worth 23, and one of the districts of Maine.
 
On the Texan front -
The working relationship between Richards and Bob Bullock (her Lieutenant Governor) was famously dysfunctional. In a world where Richards continues as Governor, it probably stays that way, which may inhibit some further accomplishments.
School finance is a quagmire - I don't anticipate much will happen there, other than some low-profile reforms. Less tort reform, more regulation.
Historically, Texas Governors don't tend to serve more than 8 years, with Perry as an exception. In 1998, I'd imagine the Democratic candidate would be Comptroller John Sharp or Land Commissioner Garry Mauro (the OTL candidate). The Republican nomination could go a number of ways, but my money would be on an Agriculture Commissioner by the name of Rick Perry, to whom I'd give the edge in the general.
 
I could see that, sure, but they would have to run a hell of a campaign to beat McCain. If Bush doesn't run, McCain is still the favorite, albeit he's more of a "things can happen and his challengers are no slouches" favorite rather than a prohibitive one. His fate in the general election, assuming he lands the nomination, probably depends on how much worsefor wear he is after surviving the GOP primaries. And given how picking a complete dipshit as his VP torpedoed him in OTL 2008, it also depends some on his running mate.
McCain in no way, would be the favorite. You said it yourself, he was distrusted by the GOP base, and without a singular monolith of a candidate to use all discontent against to fuel his own campaign, he most likely wouldn't even run.

And, to address your comment about Palin, he only picked her as a candidate that would shake up the race, and take the spotlight off of Obama as the first African-American, and to give his campaign which was floundering at the time a much-needed kick in the pants.
 
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.
Even assuming McCain wins - as others have pointed out not a dead cert- this is awfully convetgented.

An 8 year McCain presidency will shake things up enough to probably prevent runs by Obama. And there's no guarantee HClinton or Romney get the nod.
 
Even assuming McCain wins - as others have pointed out not a dead cert- this is awfully convetgented.

An 8 year McCain presidency will shake things up enough to probably prevent runs by Obama. And there's no guarantee HClinton or Romney get the nod.

I feel like after McCain, Republicans would go for Huckabee maybe
 
Even if Bush loses in '94, what are the odds that he pulls a Jeb, so to speak, and wins the following gubernatorial election, either against Richards or the Democratic nominee should she step down?
 
Even if Bush loses in '94, what are the odds that he pulls a Jeb, so to speak, and wins the following gubernatorial election, either against Richards or the Democratic nominee should she step down?

I guess it depends. Maybe between 94-98 Richards is able to "weaponize" Hispanic-Texans for the Democrats, getting them to have high turn out and be loyal Democratic voters. Maybe we see Texas go the way of California.
 
If Ann Richards is elected president or vice president in 2000, then her tenure might be short-lived. In OTL she died in 2006 from esophageal cancer, which was brought on by heavy alcohol and tobacco use in her younger years. It would be very unlikely to butterfly that away if the POD is in 1994. The stresses of the presidency could shorten her life further.
 
On the Texan front -
The working relationship between Richards and Bob Bullock (her Lieutenant Governor) was famously dysfunctional. In a world where Richards continues as Governor, it probably stays that way, which may inhibit some further accomplishments.
School finance is a quagmire - I don't anticipate much will happen there, other than some low-profile reforms. Less tort reform, more regulation.
Historically, Texas Governors don't tend to serve more than 8 years, with Perry as an exception. In 1998, I'd imagine the Democratic candidate would be Comptroller John Sharp or Land Commissioner Garry Mauro (the OTL candidate). The Republican nomination could go a number of ways, but my money would be on an Agriculture Commissioner by the name of Rick Perry, to whom I'd give the edge in the general.

Yep. W. did so well because he worked well with Bullock and the state's Democrats. It's also why with a different Presidential history (no/different 9/11 and different advisors) he could have been a major realigning President.

The Texas governor's power is a lot more soft power than hard power. A good analogue would be a non-figurehead but still limited constitutional monarch. The Lt. Governor is similar in power and influence to a prime minister and the cabinet is plural-elective.
 
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.

But one reason that McCain emphasized his "maverick"-ness in OTL in 1999-2000 is precisely that he knew the GOP Establishment was pretty solidly behind Bush. If Bush were not in the field, McCain might put much more emphasis on the many issues on which he was a pretty standard conservative Republican (including abortion) and much less on the few issues on which he wasn't (notably, campaign finance). So he might have been seen as a "mainstream Republican." Of course there might be rivals for "mainstream Republican" support--Liddy Dole or John Kasich or John Engler, for example--but they all had political disadvantages of their own, in terms of not being widely-enough known or in the case of Liddy Dole of being married to the man who had lost in 1996...
 
If Ann Richards is elected president or vice president in 2000, then her tenure might be short-lived. In OTL she died in 2006 from esophageal cancer, which was brought on by heavy alcohol and tobacco use in her younger years. It would be very unlikely to butterfly that away if the POD is in 1994. The stresses of the presidency could shorten her life further.
Yes. This is especially the case because esophageal cancer tends to develop slowly and without symptoms until it's quite advanced. She was likely suffering from the cancer significantly before she was diagnosed. I'm more inclined to think that being President would mean that the cancer or other diseases might be detected earlier, which might lead to a resignation or refusing to run for a second term. Of course, this is exactly what e of pi and I had happen in Eyes Turned Skyward, so I'm a little biased.
 
Top