WI President Tsongas '92?

Well I'd imagine that there would be some similarities to Clinton (NAFTA, welfare reform, vetoes of abortion restrictions). However his focus would be on cutting the debt and the deficit. It's more than likely that he would take a more aggressive approach than Clinton, and would probably make some enemies with congressional liberals if he attacked entitlement programs. Overall, I think you're talking about a one term President (not due to his policies of course) who attacks the deficit head on and gets some credit for the economic recovery.
 
I wonder who the Democrats would have as his VP, since that person would have the very real (and, ITTL, pretty much certain) chance of becoming president before the end of Tsongas' term.

Also, do you think Tsongas would run for reelection? I don't know how far his lymphoma was during the early '96 campaign season, but it would probably be a lot worse if he were elected due to the stresses of the presidency.
 
Dick Gephardt would be a good Veep for him, since he's socially liberal and affable to labor, and would balance the ticket with a midwesterner.

And liberals are going to hate a President Tsongas. A lot.
 
Liberals have never liked the DLC wing dating back to the latter's founding. Hence all the movements to try and sabotage their nomination: ABB, ABC x3. So Tsongas-Gephardt, and Tsongas either resigns or dies in office by mid-1995. I say Gephardt doesn't undo Tsongas' legacy but takes another DLC Dem as his running mate, perhaps Evan Bayh? Gephardt-Bayh wins in 1996 over Gramm-McCain, McCain wins in 2000. Without Clinton and impeachment it is quite possible that Newt remains Speaker after 1998, with all the butterflies that entails.
 
Well I'd imagine that there would be some similarities to Clinton (NAFTA, welfare reform, vetoes of abortion restrictions). However his focus would be on cutting the debt and the deficit. It's more than likely that he would take a more aggressive approach than Clinton, and would probably make some enemies with congressional liberals if he attacked entitlement programs. Overall, I think you're talking about a one term President (not due to his policies of course) who attacks the deficit head on and gets some credit for the economic recovery.

I assume you're referring to his health problems and premature death. He died two days before his term as president would have ended (January 18, 1997--I believe Lyndon Johnson similarly died in January 1973, around what would have been the end of his second full term). I don't know when it was discovered his cancer had returned, but I imagine he would not have been the Democratic nominee in 1996.

Also, although he seemed like a lovely person, I classify Tsongas's campaign with a certain variety of ineffectual idealistic exercise by Democratic politicians that finds more resonance with the media than they do with actual live Democrats. You can tell these usually when the media starts using phrases like "anti-charisma charisma," and when the candidate's inability to smile, speak in simple declarative sentences or offer domestic policies that Democratic voters would have a reason to support is made out to be a virtue.

John Kerry in 2004 ran one of these but unfortunately it was only discovered for what it was when it was too late for us to nominate a live human instead.

See also Bradley, Bill.

By the way, since I'm somewhat excited over a certain gubernatorial campaign in California, I'm thinking of writing a similar timeline starring Jerry Brown. I'm pondering likely points of departure, but suffice to say it involves upping the carnage setting of the 1992 primary season to "Apocalyptic."
 
Some logical steps are missing here: you assume Tsongas could have enacted his centrist program even though he was not as persuasive a politician as Clinton is, you assume the Republicans win in 1994 even with President Tsongas governing closer to the center than Clinton did, you assume Robert Dole is not the Republican nominee in 1996, and what's weirder, you assume Gramm could win the nomination that year (wow).

I mean, you can have politics in your timeline take this course, but there needs to be some exposition as to how this happens, for instance Bob Dole literally falling off the stage, followed quickly by Lamar Alexander. And finally, 2000? If the Democrats are governing during a nineties with an economy that basically looks like ours did in the nineties, but without Clintonian sleaze issues or the distraction of impeachment, them losing the White House begins to look like a tall order, unless Elian Gonzales triggers WWIII. :)

Moreover, President Gephardt would be a big deal in and of himself. He may not undo NAFTA, but his administration would certainly move in the opposite direction from Clinton's when it comes to trade. This means a completely different relationship between the White House and the Democratic base in the later half of the decade.

And finally, Gephardt was DLC.

Liberals have never liked the DLC wing dating back to the latter's founding. Hence all the movements to try and sabotage their nomination: ABB, ABC x3. So Tsongas-Gephardt, and Tsongas either resigns or dies in office by mid-1995. I say Gephardt doesn't undo Tsongas' legacy but takes another DLC Dem as his running mate, perhaps Evan Bayh? Gephardt-Bayh wins in 1996 over Gramm-McCain, McCain wins in 2000. Without Clinton and impeachment it is quite possible that Newt remains Speaker after 1998, with all the butterflies that entails.
 
Then President Bayh in 2000. Who do the Republicans nominate? I've always wondered what would happen in 2000 if Jeb also won in 1994.
 
Well, as much as I really think he doesn't deserve it, Gephardt would if he started his term after the midway point of the previous term be eligible for another term, and so he could conceivably govern until 2004. If that was the case I could see him bungling an alternate-timeline global war on terror, considering he was one of the co-sponsors of the Iraq war resolution. Very likely he could go down LBJ-style (and his career could ironically end like it did in our time line, fighting Howard Dean in Iowa in 2004).

But in 2000 Gephardt could retire on his own, or suffer a primary challenge, or face pressure from big money interests who object to his trade positions and decide to go quietly. Bayh is far enough to the right of the party that even as a sitting vice-president his candidacy would trigger a fierce fight for the nomination. But we'll assume he wins.

Much of who would win the Republican nomination in 2000 depends on the events of the timeline you've not discussed. Of course there are any number of political variables. Either Bush son having won a governorship would be a force to be reckoned with. Others would include: John McCain, Pete Wilson, Jim Engler, John Ashcroft, Elizabeth Dole, Tommy Thompson, and if you wanted things to really get spicey, Oliver North or Pat Buchanan.


Then President Bayh in 2000. Who do the Republicans nominate? I've always wondered what would happen in 2000 if Jeb also won in 1994.
 
I think '94 happens mostly the same way, because Tsongas governs to the left of his comfort zone in '93-'94 the same as Clinton did. After all, Clinton was DLC who felt the pressure to move left from Democrat leadership in Congress frustrated by 12 years of a GOP President. Would Tsongas really that much more of a skilled politician as to hold up when Clinton couldn't?

After '94 I think Tsongas moves hard to the center and as he grows ill, leaves his centrist policies as his legacy to the party. Assuming his VP is similarly centrist, then I expect he passes the mantle to him in '96, well liked as the economy recovers and policies turn more in line with public opinion.

Gephardt could indeed fill that role. While he was moving a bit to the left by the mid-90s IOTL, I could see his position as the successor to Tsongas bringing him back to the DLC roots from which he grew his early career. Particularly if his political instincts prevent him from falling into the false belief that Democrats lost in '94 because they weren't successfully liberal enough.
 
Something everyone seems to be forgetting- Ross Perot. His candidacy was based on two things: concern over the deficit, and concern over Clinton's trustworthiness. With Tsongas championing the deficit as his main issue, and lacking the adultery/draft-dodging scandals of Clinton, their will be little room for Perot in the race, and he might not bother. Does this mean that Tsongas takes Perot's voters+Clintons? I'm skeptical- even in spite of being more moderate and less scandal ridden then Clinton, his being from New England rather then the South and his lesser charisma would leave him less able to win over moderates and Southern bubbas.

Should he be elected, a stronger emphasis on deficit reduction then Clinton, definitely, as he was even more DLC then Clinton. Furthermore he wouldn't stumble so much as Clinton did early on and lose his political capital-he would be savvy enough to avoid the gays-in-the-military fumble, the backlash over absence of middle-class tax cuts(which Clinton promised but didn't deliver) and probably nominates less controversial people.

I can't find much about his specific economic proposal though. Presumably a portion of his deficit reduction strategy would be tax increases, and we would see greater military cuts then Clinton pushed through. Also, as he was more socially liberal, we probably see more leftwing supreme court nominees- Lawrence Tribe and so on.

As he dies in 1995, the sympathy vote and strong economy will carry his successor over the line(Gore or a Southern Governor I suspect so as to balance out the ticket geographically, but probably not Clinton). With the strength of the economy in 2000, successor is probably reelected(fun fact: would be the longest serving president since FDR).

With the Democrats having been in power for 8 years prior to 9/11, they will cop some flack for not preventing it(unless it doesn't occur for some reason) rather then the boost that Bush recieved. Couple this with the absence of the Bush tax cuts and likely continued low spending(due to Republicans having higher skepticism of spending proposals when Democrats propose them) which will mean a significantly lower debt but slightly weaker economy in 2004, and you have a recipe for a Republican victory.
 
I think '94 happens mostly the same way, because Tsongas governs to the left of his comfort zone in '93-'94 the same as Clinton did. After all, Clinton was DLC who felt the pressure to move left from Democrat leadership in Congress frustrated by 12 years of a GOP President. Would Tsongas really that much more of a skilled politician as to hold up when Clinton couldn't?
The only serious issue Clinton had in that regard was his Health reform proposals failure. Given Tsongas's concern for the deficit, I can't see him proposing anything similar unless it was deficit neutral.

Tsongas will have to sate the left, but their are ways of doing that aside from expensive new welfare programs- structural reforms or socially liberal policies, for instance. Of course that runs him into the risk of triggering "gays-in-the-military-ho no!!!" style outrage, but he can probably find a middle ground. Perhaps he could pursue campaign finance reform, which has both progressive and bipartisan appeal.
 
Well, Perot's other major issue in 1992 was trade, specifically his opposition to NAFTA. Clinton was able to neutralize Perot's populist appeal to the Democratic base by, among other things, the promise of a middle class tax cut. One of the problems Tsongas has as the nominee is actually that he is less well equipped to handle Perot than Clinton, especially among southerners and westerners chilly to the prospect of another non-WASP northeasterner Democratic nominee following the Dukakis misadventure. I actually see Perot as more, and not less, of a challenge to Tsongas than he was to Clinton. And I see him staying in all the way through the race, smelling victory. (This actually makes an interesting overlap with that other 1992 thread, actually.)

What's strange is that people still haven't proposed a program that would give Tsongas appeal among Democrats. Now there are some Democratic voters who fantasize about budget surpluses--Robert Rubin, Ben Nelson and some others that can probably be counted on your fingers and toes. But it's not the way to win the party nomination, as Clinton's defeat of Tsongas's in our timeline really underscores. Deficit reduction's political appeal really lies more with political independents.

The second thing people on this thread need to really consider is how close those votes on Clinton's deficit reduction plan actually were. And--as Bob Woodward described in his book The Agenda--that deficit reduction plan required a huge investment of political capital, all Clinton's reservoir of political skill, and a certain amount of deceit. It's easy to imagine Tsongas trying, and failing, to get his signature piece of legislation passed.

Something everyone seems to be forgetting- Ross Perot. His candidacy was based on two things: concern over the deficit, and concern over Clinton's trustworthiness. With Tsongas championing the deficit as his main issue, and lacking the adultery/draft-dodging scandals of Clinton, their will be little room for Perot in the race, and he might not bother. Does this mean that Tsongas takes Perot's voters+Clintons? I'm skeptical- even in spite of being more moderate and less scandal ridden then Clinton, his being from New England rather then the South and his lesser charisma would leave him less able to win over moderates and Southern bubbas.

Should he be elected, a stronger emphasis on deficit reduction then Clinton, definitely, as he was even more DLC then Clinton. Furthermore he wouldn't stumble so much as Clinton did early on and lose his political capital-he would be savvy enough to avoid the gays-in-the-military fumble, the backlash over absence of middle-class tax cuts(which Clinton promised but didn't deliver) and probably nominates less controversial people.

I can't find much about his specific economic proposal though. Presumably a portion of his deficit reduction strategy would be tax increases, and we would see greater military cuts then Clinton pushed through. Also, as he was more socially liberal, we probably see more leftwing supreme court nominees- Lawrence Tribe and so on.

As he dies in 1995, the sympathy vote and strong economy will carry his successor over the line(Gore or a Southern Governor I suspect so as to balance out the ticket geographically, but probably not Clinton). With the strength of the economy in 2000, successor is probably reelected(fun fact: would be the longest serving president since FDR).

With the Democrats having been in power for 8 years prior to 9/11, they will cop some flack for not preventing it(unless it doesn't occur for some reason) rather then the boost that Bush recieved. Couple this with the absence of the Bush tax cuts and likely continued low spending(due to Republicans having higher skepticism of spending proposals when Democrats propose them) which will mean a significantly lower debt but slightly weaker economy in 2004, and you have a recipe for a Republican victory.
 
Bow ties would make a come back.


I think Paul Simon (who ran for president in 1988, and appeal-wise had some overlap with Tsongas) was Captain Bow Tie. I don't personally remember Tsongas wearing bow-ties, and I could be wrong.






Tsongas might not have pissed off the country into voting in a Republican congressional majority. I think some degree of Clinton's success is due to Gingrich chewing on him the way he did. (It's why I'm almost optimistic about GOP taking over congress viz Obama...)
 
Top