So what kinda world would we live in today...If Ann Richards was able to pull of a narrow victory over Dubya in the 1994 TX Gubnertorial Election? How might Texas' politics be different with a longer Democratic Administration? Does George go back to being Baseball Commisoner? Also, what would have to occur for Clinton to drop Gore from the ticket in 96' to put Richards as his VP? Any other Ideas?
WI: George W. Bush loses in '94
- Thread starter Historico
- Start date
Actually George Bush, Jr. wanted to be Baseball Commissioner and once he knew he wasn't getting it the Texas Governor's Mansion was the consolation prize. If he loses the race I don't what he does. Likely takes another shot at Commissioner a few years down the road, perhaps runs again in '98.
As for Ann Richards, winning re-election just delays the Republican take-over of the state a little. People joked, but meant, that Karl Rove was actually the guy running Texas politics and that was more or less true. Not in the policy sense, but in the Texas is Republican sense. One or two more terms of Democratic Governors means nothing except to Ann Richard's chances for being VP to Gore in 2000 (although, like Lloyd Bentsen in '88, she won't carry the state for Gore).
No Governor Bush of Texas means Governor Jeb Bush of Florida gets the shot at either the 2000, 2004, or 2008 Republican nominations (depending on how 2000 shapes up with no George Bush, and whether Gore looks strong in for his second term… or if Gore even beats whoever runs in 2000).
Clinton isn't dumping Gore. He doesn't need to, they work well together (at least, when Hillary Clinton wasn't around), and dumping Gore is not the bold move Bush 41 could have had by having Quayle fall on his sword back in '92.
So who might the Republican's run in 2000 with a Gore/Richards ticket? Is Collin Powell a possible choice? Or Maybe Alan Keyes who was known for his staunch Conservative platform?
If Colin Powell didn't go for the Republican nomination in 1996 (when, in all likelihood he would have won the general ) I doubt he'd take the 2000 nomination. He really is too moderate for Republican primaries, after all.
2000 is an interesting question, though, with no George Bush and Jeb Bush (only two years into his term) probably not going for it. I'm tempted to say it's McCain's year, but he can't handle a frontrunning campaign (as 2007 proved) so he really does need somebody to play off of.
If butterflies keep Newt Gingrich is good standing, he probably has a good chance.
If Alan Keyes somehow managed to win the 2000 Republican primaries (i.e. via an alien mind control ray he picked up) he'd be trounced by Gore.
One of the also-rans of OTL 2000 might catch fire, there was a big list (Elizabeth Dole, Lamar Alexander, Steve Forbes, Dan Quayle, and even more lower profile people).
As for the general I expect it's Gore favoured against anybody but McCain, and even McCain would have enough troubles with the base (remember, this is before he flipped to agree with the base on all the big issues—and even after that, i.e. now, he's still having trouble with them) that his swing voters are keeping him in the running instead of heading for a landslide.
That said, Gore Vs. McCain is probably McCain favoured.
2000 is an interesting question, though, with no George Bush and Jeb Bush (only two years into his term) probably not going for it. I'm tempted to say it's McCain's year, but he can't handle a frontrunning campaign (as 2007 proved) so he really does need somebody to play off of.
If butterflies keep Newt Gingrich is good standing, he probably has a good chance.
If Alan Keyes somehow managed to win the 2000 Republican primaries (i.e. via an alien mind control ray he picked up) he'd be trounced by Gore.
One of the also-rans of OTL 2000 might catch fire, there was a big list (Elizabeth Dole, Lamar Alexander, Steve Forbes, Dan Quayle, and even more lower profile people).
As for the general I expect it's Gore favoured against anybody but McCain, and even McCain would have enough troubles with the base (remember, this is before he flipped to agree with the base on all the big issues—and even after that, i.e. now, he's still having trouble with them) that his swing voters are keeping him in the running instead of heading for a landslide.
That said, Gore Vs. McCain is probably McCain favoured.
If anything was certain, Bush would have cracked down on steroid use in baseball a lot sooner than Bud Selig did. We definitely don't see Bush running for any more political offices, though I don't see it stopping Jeb. Jeb probably wouldn't be interested in the Presidency, which throws the nomination in 2000 wide open. McCain would probably get it and the Presidency in 2000, but he'd likely only be a one-term President.
Certainly the early decade economic downturn couldn't have been avoided, though the US may have avoided the debacle that became Iraq. This would be essential in not eroding the good will the US accumulated after September 11, 2001. The economy would probably start to turn around in the later part of the decade.
Certainly the early decade economic downturn couldn't have been avoided, though the US may have avoided the debacle that became Iraq. This would be essential in not eroding the good will the US accumulated after September 11, 2001. The economy would probably start to turn around in the later part of the decade.
PaleHorseRiding
Banned
With a Republican administration the Iraq war is basically a guarantee to happen after certain laws were passed in the US also with the irritation of all the broken ceasefire agreements that he had done over the years
Re Iraq, if 9/11 happens, and presuming whoever (McCain, Gore, Bradley(?), et.al) lets Tommy Franks and SOCOM run Afganistan as in OTL (BTW, it was the plan presented to Clinton after the embassies). Something was going to happen in Iraqi in 2003-04, period.
No way the status-quo was not going to be maintained. Look at how hard President Clinton had work to keep North/Southern Watch and the Sanctions post 97. He even had to fight certain people in his own party... (course the funny part was that it was VP Gore who for the adminstrations lead on the hardline with Iraq) .
So either the butterflied adminstration accepts walking away, and Iraq conventional rearming (Russia, China, France and Germany had contracts in place) and regaining freedomw of action (with all that entails to our present in KSA, and the actions of Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan) or you have to remove the problem, namely the leadership, some way.
No way the status-quo was not going to be maintained. Look at how hard President Clinton had work to keep North/Southern Watch and the Sanctions post 97. He even had to fight certain people in his own party... (course the funny part was that it was VP Gore who for the adminstrations lead on the hardline with Iraq) .
So either the butterflied adminstration accepts walking away, and Iraq conventional rearming (Russia, China, France and Germany had contracts in place) and regaining freedomw of action (with all that entails to our present in KSA, and the actions of Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan) or you have to remove the problem, namely the leadership, some way.