Interesting point about Clinton being a Boomer. Cuomo was born in 1932 (just looked up up), so was Silent Generation. IOTL, the only Silent Generation prez was Biden, and you can argue that he is borderline Silent/ Boomer. Trough generations tend to get passed over for the top job, which might have been a reason Cuomo never got there.
WI : Mario Cuomo in 1992
- Thread starter Archeo04
- Start date
I doubt Clinton would've survived vetting due to his, shall we say, issues with women being an obvious liability.
Go back to 1988 and add 5% to the Dukakis total in each state and subtract 5% from Bush, which I think is how a two way race between Bush and Cuomo in 1992 would have probably turned out, and the following states flip:
California
Connecticut
Maryland
Michigan
Missouri
Montana
New Mexico
Pennsylvania
South Dakota
Vermont
Nationwide, this translates to 50.6% for Cuomo and 48.4% for Bush, which seems reasonable. These add 168 electoral votes to the 111 Dukakis got, for a total of 279, which is enough. Clinton carried all of these states except for South Dakota, and I think South Dakota was a blip in 1988 due to farm belt problems, and Cuomo isn't carrying it, nor Montanta, which Clinton carried but only due to an unusually high Perot percentage. However, he doesn't need those seven EVs, and the other states on the list were pretty narrow Bush wins (I think only Michigan had a margin over 3%). Among southern states, Dukakis came closest in Louisiana, finishing 10% behind Bush.
Two more points. Looking at 1992, the states of Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Georgia combined for 49 electoral votes. Add Kentucky and you get 57 electoral votes, and you can go ahead and add Montana, which is not close to being a southern state but was a fluke Clinton win, and that gives you 61. IOTL, Clinton got 370 electoral votes, 100 more than he needed. So I don't get where the argument that Cuomo can't win because he loses all of Clinton's southern states is coming from. Even if you count Missouri, Maryland and Delaware as southern states, that only gets you to 83, and Dukakis lost Maryland and Missouri by less than 2%, so this is really a stretch. The Democrats won the 1992 presidential election by sweeeping the Northeast and West Coast, and carrying the Midwest except for the high plains states and Indiana. They didn't need to win a single state that joined the Confederacy. Clinton only carried four out of the eleven in 1992, and three in 1996. Dukakis came fairly close to winning and his best Confederate state was Louisiana, where he lost by a 10% margin.
The other point is that Perot dropped out IOTL the same day his petition drive to get on the New York state ballot was supposed to kick off. He got on the ballot anyway basically because Cuomo put him there.
California
Connecticut
Maryland
Michigan
Missouri
Montana
New Mexico
Pennsylvania
South Dakota
Vermont
Nationwide, this translates to 50.6% for Cuomo and 48.4% for Bush, which seems reasonable. These add 168 electoral votes to the 111 Dukakis got, for a total of 279, which is enough. Clinton carried all of these states except for South Dakota, and I think South Dakota was a blip in 1988 due to farm belt problems, and Cuomo isn't carrying it, nor Montanta, which Clinton carried but only due to an unusually high Perot percentage. However, he doesn't need those seven EVs, and the other states on the list were pretty narrow Bush wins (I think only Michigan had a margin over 3%). Among southern states, Dukakis came closest in Louisiana, finishing 10% behind Bush.
Two more points. Looking at 1992, the states of Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Georgia combined for 49 electoral votes. Add Kentucky and you get 57 electoral votes, and you can go ahead and add Montana, which is not close to being a southern state but was a fluke Clinton win, and that gives you 61. IOTL, Clinton got 370 electoral votes, 100 more than he needed. So I don't get where the argument that Cuomo can't win because he loses all of Clinton's southern states is coming from. Even if you count Missouri, Maryland and Delaware as southern states, that only gets you to 83, and Dukakis lost Maryland and Missouri by less than 2%, so this is really a stretch. The Democrats won the 1992 presidential election by sweeeping the Northeast and West Coast, and carrying the Midwest except for the high plains states and Indiana. They didn't need to win a single state that joined the Confederacy. Clinton only carried four out of the eleven in 1992, and three in 1996. Dukakis came fairly close to winning and his best Confederate state was Louisiana, where he lost by a 10% margin.
The other point is that Perot dropped out IOTL the same day his petition drive to get on the New York state ballot was supposed to kick off. He got on the ballot anyway basically because Cuomo put him there.
I suspect during the election the Republicans will try and cast Cuomo as a hypocrite for using his Catholicism as a reason to be against the death penalty while ignoring the Church's on abortion.
If Cuomo loses every Southern State, in addition to Montana, New Hampshire, and Ohio, he would win with 295 electoral votes to Bush's 243. Clinton won by such a substantial margin that in order for any Democrat to lose, you need to shift around 11 states to Bush.
Although Cuomo's liberalism and lack of Clinton's Southern roots would certainly hurt him, it is difficult to see him losing unless he proves to be a particularly inept national candidate. This would be true not just of Cuomo, but of any Democrat in 1992. The fact is that the economy had failed to recover from the 1990-91 recession, and despite his skill in foreign policy Bush was seen as out of touch on economic issues. Cuomo would do worse than Clinton, but I doubt that he would outright lose.
Although Cuomo's liberalism and lack of Clinton's Southern roots would certainly hurt him, it is difficult to see him losing unless he proves to be a particularly inept national candidate. This would be true not just of Cuomo, but of any Democrat in 1992. The fact is that the economy had failed to recover from the 1990-91 recession, and despite his skill in foreign policy Bush was seen as out of touch on economic issues. Cuomo would do worse than Clinton, but I doubt that he would outright lose.
If we have a reasonable consensus that Cuomo will win by some margin or another, maybe its time to start focusing on his presidency. Cabinet choices, priorities in his first 100 days, that sort of thing. It was mentioned above Cuomo criticised Obama for prioritising healthcare over the economy for instance. Clinton tried to pass a large stimulus, could Cuomo do better?
Hmmm... this should be interesting then. If Cuomo is a little more old school, how would he handle the economy then? From what I saw, he did have some opposition to Reaganomics so maybe he would gradually undo some of the tax breaks on the rich as part of economic reform. At the very least maybe increase capital gains tax over on them. He could definitely frame this as making the elite go and pay their fair share and he can shut down any GOP complaints by pointing over to his record of a balanced budget and make them look like fools. Healthcare would be a secondary priority, but it would definitely be something he would be pushing for when he got the change and when things clear.
Image and theatre is an important and major if rather erratic part of politics. Like you said, Cuomo's old school image would likely remove alot of the bite that the GOP had. I doubt Slimy Newt or the other conservatives would be able to really hit on Cuomo like with Clinton. Especially when it comes to the GOP, alot of it had become style over substance. Nothing but complaints and appearances rather than of substance. Look how much of the "Contract with America" thing fizzled. It was where the the GOP was showing it was less a conservative party and more reactionary. So yeah, I do think alot of it was image over for the public.
Honestly, I think Cuomo handling the economy well along with the older school image you mentioned earlier would very likely butterfly away the Republican Revolution of 1994. While they might gains seats, I don't think it'd be enough for them to force Cuomo to compromise like OTL Clinton.
Though speaking of healthcare, Cuomo did show interest in it from back as governor so it's likely something he would push later in his first term or perhaps his second term. He would probably be willing to do a public health plan as the biggest ambition with the economy fixed though it'd be something he and Kennedy would have to work together to ensure the best deal and not let the GOP get in the way of it.
I don't think it'd be like Obama because Obama had his image and reputation of hope and change, with him being of new blood and of course, a president of color. Basically what helped make the GOP even more reactionary to an impudent degree. Cuomo being an old-school political figure would not draw the same level of ire and his past record and experience would be able to keep the GOP down for a fair bit of stuff.
The deadlock would probably rise in his second term as the economy would be fixed and Cuomo would go on things like healthcare, education, environment, energy conservation and the like. But yeah, his image and reputation means the GOP would be fighting an uphill battle against him from what it looks like. He's a veteran with a good reputation on rulership. Sure there are the mob rumors and connections, but that may make them look bad if the most they could do was repeat gossip.
Last edited:
I think this is pretty perceptive. But Newt Gingrich is a smart guy who’s well able to shift gears. So, we’d have a . . different future.
Someone said Cuomo would be against NAFTA so we can butterfly that away. His priorities would be on the economy and well, Cuomo has his chops with a balanced budget as a governor. This with his opposition to Reaganomics means he may go and re-increase taxes on the rich as part of his economic reforms combine with a tax cut for middle and working class. Likely also an increase on capital gains tax especially since that's where the money would be, though probably modest at first. He may combine this with the stimulus to do it. As people are spending money in the 1990s and the economy is doing well, it will net him alot of points.
Yeah, but if he doesn't have much to work with, then well, he's in trouble. He'd have some things like the rumors of mob connections and maybe on policy, but well, difficult to attack a guy with a good standing on policy and boy if Cuomo gets sick of it, he could counterback at Newt regarding his shady history.
You’re not going to criticize Newt yourself [that would be helping him punch above his weight]. Instead, you’re going to have a trusted ally in Congress criticize him.
He's a New York liberal who's pro-abortion and anti death penalty, that already makes him more polarising then Clinton could ever be in a country where liberal was a four letter word and around 80% were pro-death penalty.
Aside from his views he had blemishes on his own record. The case of Arthur Shaw cross for instance, this man could be his Willie Horton, and indeed was used as a political cudgel in 1994.
I don't know why you think attacking Gingrich would be some sort of panacea, it's not like Clinton never thought of that.
As a side note this probably boosts the younger Cuomo into the Senate or governorship by the 2000s, in a sense the Hillary to his Bill.
“ . . . On December 7 [1992], you go to tell the president[-elect] the news. What's his reaction?”
“The president was not happy when he heard that the projected deficit was much larger than we had assumed, larger than we had been told, and larger than the Bush administration had told the public. He knew that it meant that we couldn't do everything that he wanted to do, everything that he had promised the public. He was upset. But I remember this vividly -- I was surprised at the time, because he was also kind of excited. He said, ‘Gee, that's a great challenge. We're going to really, really have to work on that.’ . . . ”
my underlining
********************
This is an interview with one of Clinton’s economics guys about the situation before the Inauguration on Jan. 20, 1993.
They find out the projected deficit numbers were even worse than they thought and worse than the outgoing Bush administration had shared with the public. This meant the incoming administration had to do more deficit reduction and less public investment. And any incoming president will face this same dilemma. Just for the record, I believe in health care and general education.
However, I think “job training” is somewhat overplayed and over-promised, as far as what it’s likely to achieve.
Last edited:
Who do you think Cuomo would have chosen as his running mate? Gore is still a likely candidate: a young, moderate Southerner who supported the Persian Gulf War but still appeals to liberals due to his work on environmental issues. Picking Gore may not result in Cuomo winning any Southern states, but it would help the ticket overall.
Alternatively, may Cuomo simply pick Clinton? If Clinton isn't completely crushed by Cuomo, I imagine he would be viable enough to be considered as a running mate. Picking Clinton, assuming he isn't totally discredited by his primary defeat, could result in the ticket carrying Arkansas and maybe another Southern state.
Last edited:
It is not going to be Clinton, he'd never get past vetting. I think a senator from the more conservative wing of the party would be the best bet. Gore qualifies, so does Nunn.
Gore seems likely as VP still. Clinton and Cuomo didn’t get along…
www.latimes.com
Clinton Apologizes for Remarks About Cuomo : Politics: Democratic candidate, in a private phone conversation, implied that the New York governor behaves like a Mafioso.
Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton apologized to New York Gov. Mario M.
www.latimes.com
Gore seems likely as VP still. Clinton and Cuomo didn’t get along…
Clinton Apologizes for Remarks About Cuomo : Politics: Democratic candidate, in a private phone conversation, implied that the New York governor behaves like a Mafioso.
Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton apologized to New York Gov. Mario M.
At least, I can see Clinton getting appointed to some sort of cabinet position in order to appease his supporters and other Neoliberal Democrats.
dcharles
Banned
Gore seems likely as VP still. Clinton and Cuomo didn’t get along…
Clinton Apologizes for Remarks About Cuomo : Politics: Democratic candidate, in a private phone conversation, implied that the New York governor behaves like a Mafioso.
Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton apologized to New York Gov. Mario M.
Dick Riley of SC, Sam Nunn of GA. If you want a populist, Pryor in Arkansas or Heflin in Alabama might be interesting choices.
Riley, also was personally against the death penalty but carried it out while he was governor, so at least part of the ticket would be prepared to spin that to a conservative electorate.
Maybe Cuomo's line as a national candidate would be something like "I am personally opposed to the death penalty but I respect the rights of the states to enact it"?
I personally do not find that a particularly compelling argument, but in 1992 that would play better than an outright opposition to capital punishment.
I do not think picking Riley would help much in South Carolina, but it could potentially help Cuomo in Upper South states like Kentucky or Tennessee.
I do think Cuomo would beat Bush in 1992; his "New York liberalism" would cost him several states but Bush's unpopularity, the poor economy, and the President's inept re-election campaign would likely be enough for the Democrats to win regardless of who they nominate. Likewise, I think just about any Democrat would win in 1996 due to the strong economy and a lack of strong candidates in the Republican field that year. Cuomo is most likely a successful and well-remembered two term President in this scenario.
Cuomo seems like a very talented and even brilliant man, but his indecision unfortunately cost him what could have been a lasting legacy as President in the 1990s.