WI: Gerald Ford assassinated in 1975

OOC: So basically, President Barack Obama is a strange attractor in the Lorentz cycles of Time ;) If grizzly bears evolve instead of humans, there will still be an individual named Bear-ack Obama who becomes leader of North America, sometime between GY 2000 and 2020.

Or maybe Mr. McNutt just really likes Obama, because he seems to do this in all of his alt-POTUS lists.
 

Zioneer

Banned
Rockefeller would lose the nomination to Reagan who would lose the general election.
1974-1975 Gerald Ford
1975- 1977 Nelson Rockefeller
1977-1981. Jimmy Carter
1981- 1989 George H W Bush
1989 - 1992 Bob Dole
1993 - 2001 Bill Clinton
2001- 2009. George W Bush
2009 - Barack Obama

Um, that doesn't make any sense, the list of presidents would not continue almost exactly the same if Ford were assassinated.
 
Defeating an incumbent president is still a difficult thing to do in the primaries; I think Rockefeller would enter office with high approval ratings. Plus, after going through now three presidents in one term, and four vice presidents, a lot of people would probably just want stability and be less keen in throwing Rockefeller out of office. I think he would be able to narrowly beat Reagan in the primary. As for the general, who knows. Carter was such a dark horse this assassination would surely generate enough butterflies to possibly derail his campaign. The 1976 Democratic nomination was a crazy ride, anyone could emerge as the nominee.

Um, that doesn't make any sense, the list of presidents would not continue almost exactly the same if Ford were assassinated.
There's no use responding to Paul's president lists; he's made it clear his theory of alternate history is one in which alterations are only temporary and all timelines converge back into OTL as quickly as possible, and he's demonstrated over the years that this is an unshakeable belief of his.
 
Defeating an incumbent president is still a difficult thing to do in the primaries; I think Rockefeller would enter office with high approval ratings. Plus, after going through now three presidents in one term, and four vice presidents, a lot of people would probably just want stability and be less keen in throwing Rockefeller out of office. I think he would be able to narrowly beat Reagan in the primary. As for the general, who knows. Carter was such a dark horse this assassination would surely generate enough butterflies to possibly derail his campaign. The 1976 Democratic nomination was a crazy ride, anyone could emerge as the nominee.

There's no use responding to Paul's president lists; he's made it clear his theory of alternate history is one in which alterations are only temporary and all timelines converge back into OTL as quickly as possible, and he's demonstrated over the years that this is an unshakeable belief of his.

I completely agree. I think Rocky would win in 1976 but die around the same time as IOTL, and I think his VP, undecided whether that's Dole or Baker, would then lose in 1980, not to Ted kennedy, he didn't run in 1972 or 1976 and would be much less tempted to do so TTL without Carter. I think Church, Udall, and Bayh would be top contenders, depending on who won in 1976.
 
I completely agree. I think Rocky would win in 1976 but die around the same time as IOTL, and I think his VP, undecided whether that's Dole or Baker, would then lose in 1980, not to Ted kennedy, he didn't run in 1972 or 1976 and would be much less tempted to do so TTL without Carter. I think Church, Udall, and Bayh would be top contenders, depending on who won in 1976.
All of those guys proved to be pretty unimpressive campaigners though. We might see some new rising star seize the banner instead.
 
I completely agree. I think Rocky would win in 1976 but die around the same time as IOTL, and I think his VP, undecided whether that's Dole or Baker, would then lose in 1980, not to Ted kennedy, he didn't run in 1972 or 1976 and would be much less tempted to do so TTL without Carter. I think Church, Udall, and Bayh would be top contenders, depending on who won in 1976.

Man, the 70s ITTL couldn't get more chaotic.

*Remembers that Fear Loathing and Gumbo is a thing* oh yeah, they could.
 
Last edited:
I completely agree. I think Rocky would win in 1976 but die around the same time as IOTL, and I think his VP, undecided whether that's Dole or Baker, would then lose in 1980, not to Ted kennedy, he didn't run in 1972 or 1976 and would be much less tempted to do so TTL without Carter. I think Church, Udall, and Bayh would be top contenders, depending on who won in 1976.

Let's say it is Rockefeller/Baker. What do you think would happen? You are speaking about the Democratic Party or the GOP; and about what year? 1976 or 1980, or even 1984?

I don't know a lot about either Church, Udall or Bayh, admittedly... What policies did they have?

All of those guys proved to be pretty unimpressive campaigners though. We might see some new rising star seize the banner instead.

If you don't think much of the three people proposed, who do you propose as "new rising star"?
 
Let's say it is Rockefeller/Baker. What do you think would happen? You are speaking about the Democratic Party or the GOP; and about what year? 1976 or 1980, or even 1984?

I don't know a lot about either Church, Udall or Bayh, admittedly... What policies did they have?



If you don't think much of the three people proposed, who do you propose as "new rising star"?

I'm pretty sure both leaned a bit more to the left than Carter, we don't remember now but there was a strong ABC(Anyone But Carter)movement in 1976 among the Democrats because many party leaders feared Carter, coming from the Deep South, would be too conservative, and Church and Brown were at the centre of that movement.
 
Um, that doesn't make any sense, the list of presidents would not continue almost exactly the same if Ford were assassinated.

Paul has stated in other threads he doesn't believe in the butterfly effect, so aside from minor changes he has no concept of history taking different turns even in other fictional timelines.
 
Rockefeller can't win the nomination in 1976. By 1976, the nomination is decided by primaries. Republican primary voters are conservative. Look how close Reagan came to defeating an incumbent president, who had a long history as a conservative. Rocky had a record as a liberal.
 
Rockefeller can't win the nomination in 1976. By 1976, the nomination is decided by primaries. Republican primary voters are conservative. Look how close Reagan came to defeating an incumbent president, who had a long history as a conservative. Rocky had a record as a liberal.

He did get dropped from the ticket in '76 for a reason other than wanting to retire.
 

Zioneer

Banned
...then what's the point?

Since alternate history is the study of what could have happened and what is affected by something different happening, I have no earthly clue what the point of alternate history is without the butterfly effect.
 
Last edited:
There's no use responding to Paul's president lists; he's made it clear his theory of alternate history is one in which alterations are only temporary and all timelines converge back into OTL as quickly as possible, and he's demonstrated over the years that this is an unshakeable belief of his.

Doesn't that go against the entire point of alternate history?
 
Since alternate history is the study of what could have happened and what is affected by something different happening, I have no earthly clue what the point of alternate history is without the butterfly effect.
Plus the idea of no butterfly effect doesn't make a lot of sense. Take for instance sperm hitting an egg. The chances of any one sperm fertilizing the egg are enormously small, so we shouldn't expect to see anyone conceived after the POD in an ATL (when writing a story this rule can be bended however). In addition even if someone conceived post-POD came into the world there's a 50% chance that they would be the opposite gender. Or take accidents. There's no reason with a POD in 1975 that Bassel al-Assad should die in a car accident in 1994. That would mean that he would succeed his father as leader of Syria, instead of IOTL where his younger brother Bashar was the successor. That has major butterflies in and of itself, unless Bassel would for some reason act no differently than Bashar. And so on and so forth. Basically the no butterfly effect view only works if one believes that an invisible hand is guiding history and making sure most things work out in a certain way. And if one believes that alternate history is pointless, because the invisible hand would never have let it happen.
 
Being that Reagan almost beat Ford in the 76 primaries in the OTL, I will say that Reagan would get the nomination and will beat Carter in the election.
 
...then what's the point?
To quote Paul, "wish fulfillment". He changes what he wants in an ATL but then leaves everything else the same.

I completely agree. I think Rocky would win in 1976 but die around the same time as IOTL, and I think his VP, undecided whether that's Dole or Baker, would then lose in 1980, not to Ted kennedy, he didn't run in 1972 or 1976 and would be much less tempted to do so TTL without Carter. I think Church, Udall, and Bayh would be top contenders, depending on who won in 1976.
Bayh raises the issue that his wife died of cancer in 1979. She'd already been struggling with cancer years before the POD, so it can't be butterflied. I don't know if Bayh will be able and willing to launch a full presidential campaign months after his wife's death, unless we use the plot device of his wife telling him to run on her deathbed. If Bayh does run, I think he has Ted Kennedy's endorsement for sure.

Church and Udall might both be presidents who can't last eight years. Church died in OTL in 1984 of pancreatic cancer, and Udall suffered from Parkinson's disease which lead him to resign from the House in 1991, and may have been why he didn't run for president in 1984.
 
Top