An America that has its' Bush shaved

joho6411

Question: If George H.W. Bush had been killed in the Pacific during WWII, who are the possible candidates as President Reagan's V.P. choice in 1980/84? Also since Papa Bush was killed in 1943/44? Who do/can the Republicans nominate in 2000 since "W" will never be born? Thanks in advance, Joho :)
 

MrHuman

I can see Howard Baker in '80, but it could also be Rumsfeld. And I honestly am not sure about 2000, because the Baker/Rumsfeld/Laxalt Presidency would be really different from Bush's.

But Ashcroft, McCain, Engler, Lamar Alexander since he wouldn't have the Bush 41 association. Liddy Dole has an outside shot, so does John Kasich. Maybe Christie Whitman, Tommy Thompson, Pataki.

If I had to guess, I'd say the foremost of these candidates would be Ashcroft, Engler, Whitman, Pataki.
 

d32123

Banned
1. That thread title is awfully creepy.
2. Butterflies would ensure and entirely different political situation 40+ years after the PoD.
 

MrHuman

d32123 said:
1. That thread title is awfully creepy.
2. Butterflies would ensure and entirely different political situation 40+ years after the PoD.
Click to expand...

1. True.

2. Also true, I guess, because Bush wouldn't be DNI. EDIT: Oh right, and you're a butterfly fundie.
 

bguy

Donor
MrHuman said:
I can see Howard Baker in '80, but it could also be Rumsfeld. And I honestly am not sure about 2000, because the Baker/Rumsfeld/Laxalt Presidency would be really different from Bush's.
Click to expand...

Baker is probably the best choice. Moderate, extensive Senate experience, and he will help Reagan against Carter in the South. Rumsfeld would be a reasonable choice as well. Laxalt is more useful to Reagan as his voice in the Senate, and doesn't really add anything to the ticket, so I doubt Reagan picks him.


But Ashcroft, McCain, Engler, Lamar Alexander since he wouldn't have the Bush 41 association. Liddy Dole has an outside shot, so does John Kasich. Maybe Christie Whitman, Tommy Thompson, Pataki.

If I had to guess, I'd say the foremost of these candidates would be Ashcroft, Engler, Whitman, Pataki.
Click to expand...

Whitman and Pataki are both pro-choice so they are out. Conversely Ashcroft is probably too socially conservative for the party establishment to be comfortable with him getting the nomination. Nor can I see McCain getting very far unless 2000 looks like it is going to be a foreign policy election. Most likely the establishment rallies around a successful Governor like Engler, Tommy Thompson, or Frank Keating. Though if Bill Frist still goes into politics he could also be a possibility. The GOP would like the idea of having a Doctor as their candidate if health care is going to be a major campaign issue.
 

glenn67

If Nixon is still elected President in 1968, he selects someone else for Ambassador to the UN and special envoy to China. Ford has a different CIA director.

The Texas Rangers has a different owner. Ann Richards is probably reelected in 1994.

If John Connally finishes runner-up in the 1980 Republican primaries, Reagan picks him as his running mate. Then, he is the favorite to succeed Reagan in 1988.
 

The Uchronian

joho6411 said:
Question: If George H.W. Bush had been killed in the Pacific during WWII, who are the possible candidates as President Reagan's V.P. choice in 1980/84? Also since Papa Bush was killed in 1943/44? Who do/can the Republicans nominate in 2000 since "W" will never be born? Thanks in advance, Joho :)
Click to expand...

Gotta love the pun.

IMHO, though, maybe Reagan could convince someone like Harold Stassen to be his VP. And as for 2000? Mitt Romney. :D
 

Glass Onion

d32123 said:
1. That thread title is awfully creepy.
2. Butterflies would ensure and entirely different political situation 40+ years after the PoD.
Click to expand...

1. Agreed
2. Well, that's the problem with butterflies, they're essentially unpredictable, which makes any sort of discussion impossible. It's one thing to note that butterflies would have an impact, but we can't know what that impact would be. And I disagree that it would be entirely different. Nothing is inevitable, but there are certain trends that probably still happen. The death of George H. W. Bush probably isn't enough to prevent the Cold War, for example. Some general trends will probably stay constant, even if butterflies affect certain details. I think that Prescott Sr will still at least attempt a political career and may well still end up a Senator. Without George H. W. Bush, none of the other Bush children, for a variety of reasons, strike me as particularly likely to follow in Prescott's footsteps, and if they do, it won't be in Texas. After all, when Prescott Jr. wanted to run for office in the 1980's, it was in Connecticut. The absence of George H. W. Bush is probably going to have an impact on the Texas Oil Industry.
 

Deleted member 6086

President Rumsfeld would be interesting in the Chinese sense provided he wins in 1988. Occupation of Iraq in 1990 instead of 2003?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top