That doesn't really count since Madison and Monroe coopted Federalist programs. The Federalists were even worse of a party out of power than the Whigs.
Still the same party.
That doesn't really count since Madison and Monroe coopted Federalist programs. The Federalists were even worse of a party out of power than the Whigs.
Harrison, technically.So Bush wins a second term, which means no Gingrich Revolution... and no Bush dynasty. Unless it skips a generation, but I've never heard of such a thing in any political dynasty.
[IMAGE]
Cuomo/Clinton-307
Bush/Quayle-210
Perot/Stockdale-21
You're too generous to both Perot and Cuomo.
Cuomo/Clinton or Cuomo/Richards would be the ideal ticket; a northern New Deal liberal backed up by a charismatic Southern moderate. I put Perot in just for the hell of it. Pretend he ran a better campaign.
Clinton and Richards were very popular and charismatic. Cuomo / Richards would win, much easier than Cuomo / Clinton, which is unfeasible if the campaign is anything like OTL, where Clinton mudslinged way too much.Ideal to Democrats - yes
Ideal to the majority of the nation's voters (at least ideal enough to win a majority of EC votes) - not so sure
Clinton and Richards were very popular and charismatic. Cuomo / Richards would win, much easier than Cuomo / Clinton, which is unfeasible if the campaign is anything like OTL, where Clinton mudslinged way too much.
Richards' popularity was not enough to keep George W. Bush out of the governor's mansion, and Cuomo is not winning Texas regardless of running mates.
He won't win Texas, but he can keep the South in play; he'll surely win West Virginia, and Richards could help in nearby states (New Mexico, Arkansas, maybe Louisiana).