If Dubya was Never President...
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 05:08:59 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  If Dubya was Never President...
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: If Dubya was Never President...  (Read 2206 times)
Free Bird
TheHawk
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,918
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.84, S: -5.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: July 30, 2015, 05:07:55 AM »

How more warmly received would Jeb be at the moment?
Logged
Famous Mortimer
WillipsBrighton
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: July 30, 2015, 05:14:46 AM »

We wouldn't have gone into Iraq. The global recession probably wouldn't have been as bad.

He'd probably be doing very well but being the brother and son of two losers wouldn't make him the front runner.

It would probably even out and he'd be doing about the same.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: July 30, 2015, 05:18:31 AM »

Jeb probably would have run in 2008 or 2012 if his brother had never been president.
Logged
SWE
SomebodyWhoExists
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,234
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: July 30, 2015, 07:20:50 AM »

He'd have Pataki levels of support.
Logged
dudeabides
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,375
Tuvalu
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: July 30, 2015, 08:01:14 AM »

He has a better record than anyone running, he has the combination of executive experience and private sector experience, he's the most presidential, and he can win - he'd still be a front-runner.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,843
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: July 30, 2015, 09:08:15 AM »

The Twin Towers are still standing because Al Gore has heeded the intelligence reports and taken them seriously.

Al Gore is a one-term President, and the Presidency has passed to a reasonably-competent Republican (Lugar, Voinovich?). There is no speculative bubble in real estate, so any "Crash of 2008" is linked to the end of the Big Dig project instead of to financial shenanigans and is not as severe. Dubya and people around him never got a chance to polarize American politics as much as he did.

"General Motors is alive and Osama bin Laden is dead" is the appeal of the Republican President in 2008.

It is a very different world. 
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: July 30, 2015, 09:09:23 AM »

The Twin Towers are still standing because Al Gore has heeded the intelligence reports and taken them seriously.

And does what exactly?  What, specifically, does he do to prevent 9/11?
Logged
dudeabides
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,375
Tuvalu
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: July 30, 2015, 09:22:39 AM »
« Edited: July 30, 2015, 09:24:25 AM by dudeabides »

The Twin Towers are still standing because Al Gore has heeded the intelligence reports and taken them seriously.

Al Gore is a one-term President, and the Presidency has passed to a reasonably-competent Republican (Lugar, Voinovich?). There is no speculative bubble in real estate, so any "Crash of 2008" is linked to the end of the Big Dig project instead of to financial shenanigans and is not as severe. Dubya and people around him never got a chance to polarize American politics as much as he did.

"General Motors is alive and Osama bin Laden is dead" is the appeal of the Republican President in 2008.

It is a very different world.  

Here is the part where you have to walk back what you said:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/bill-clinton-hours-911-attacks-killed-osama-bin/story?id=24801422

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
#TheShadowyAbyss
TheShadowyAbyss
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,027
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -5.81, S: -3.64

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: July 30, 2015, 09:26:01 AM »
« Edited: July 30, 2015, 09:33:17 AM by LibertarianRepublican »

Jeb would have the stigma of being the relative of two losers, he certainly wouldn't be the frontrunner no matter how much the Jeb fangirls think he would be.
Logged
Free Bird
TheHawk
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,918
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.84, S: -5.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: July 30, 2015, 09:29:59 AM »

To your credit, pbrower, a President Voinocich sounds amazing
Logged
dudeabides
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,375
Tuvalu
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: July 30, 2015, 09:35:08 AM »

Jeb would have the stigma of being the relative of two losers, he certainly wouldn't be the frontrunner now matter how much the Jeb fangirls think he would be.

First of all, the question here was about George W. Bush. So, Jeb would be the son of a Former President who is now well respected, and the brother of the 2000 Republican Presidential Nominee who lost the closest election in history.

Secondly, he'd still have has impressive resume, his vision, and his fundraising ability. The establishment would support him still, and as I have pointed out on numerous occasions, other than 1964 and 1980, the establishment has always gotten it's way as far as presidential nominees.
Logged
hcallega
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,523
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.10, S: -3.90

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: July 30, 2015, 10:48:37 AM »

I imagine Bush would be a popular choice in 2004 against Gore, or in 2008 if Gore wins reelection. It's a lot harder to say after that, but Bush would be a popular choice among the GOP establishment in a similar way as he is today (maybe even more so).

As an aside, Mitt Romney's career would be a lot different if Gore won in 2000. Paul Celluci wouldn't be appointed Ambassador to Canada, and would run for reelection as Massachusetts Governor in 2002. Romney would have to look elsewhere to start his political career: Maybe he runs for the Senate seat in New Hampshire and wins the nomination instead of Sununu? Whatever the case, that alone is a huge butterfly.
Logged
Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,504
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: July 30, 2015, 02:59:03 PM »

He has a better record than anyone running, he has the combination of executive experience and private sector experience, he's the most presidential, and he can win - he'd still be a front-runner.

He'd be better thought of.  He'd be the son of a President who enjoyed some increase in stature after leaving office, as opposed to the brother of a failed President and a pseudo-conservative.

Beyond that, there would be other variables.  What if Gore prevailed in 2000?  What if a Republican (not a Bush) was elected in 2008?  What if we had elected Democrats in 2004 and 2012?  What if the Congress was still Democratic (a more likely possibility if there were GOP Presidents.)   What if the Presidnet in 2000 or 2008 turned out to be McCain and left office well thought of?
Logged
Orthogonian Society Treasurer
CommanderClash
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,561
Bermuda


Political Matrix
E: 0.32, S: 4.78

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: July 30, 2015, 04:57:03 PM »

His path to the nomination would be more difficult. It seems probable that McCain would have been handed the nomination and won in 2004. Whether McCain wins re-election or not, Jeb's first real shot at the presidency would be in 2012 where he would have had to battle Romney for the support of the establishment and moderate wings of the party.
Logged
ElectionsGuy
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,107
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.10, S: -7.65

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: July 30, 2015, 05:00:26 PM »

Yes
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,843
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: July 31, 2015, 04:33:31 AM »

To your credit, pbrower, a President Voinovich sounds amazing

Certain aspects of history are undeniable. One is that George W. Bush was objectively the least-suited people to have ever become President in at least a century*, and that he had one of the most troubled Presidencies ever. It is not that he was so much more conservative; it was that he was basically the new Warren G. Harding. Dubya created his own problems.

As for Voinovich, he had been Governor of Cleveland, Governor of Ohio, and a US Senator. Can anyone imagine a more  impressive curriculum vitae for President of the United States? If anyone was ever prepared to be President without being severely past-prime**, there he was.

My critique of Dubya goes beyond partisan sniping. Even if I am a very partisan Democrat I cannot simply say "liberal good; conservative bad". I have the obligation to the extent that I fancy myself an amateur historian that some conservative Republican -- yea many other conservative Republicans of the time -- would have been far better than Dubya.

9/11 could have been stopped by disrupting the network in place, active inside America,  in 2001. A wave of arrests would have done the trick. If I had been President I would have hit the roof upon connecting al-Qaeda interest in commercial jetliners and its MO of transforming heavy equipment  (previously vehicles and boats) into explosive devices. (I would have likely misinterpreted the danger as one of al-Qaeda loading jetliners with explosives and detonating them where they would do the most damage, but the defense against that would be similar -- keep al-Qaeda away from jetliners). I might not have seen a commercial jetliner as a missile itself unless I had the luck to ask the real experts in the Armed Forces...

Dubya was afraid to insult Arab leaders.  Tough. al-Qaeda was about as much an expression of Islam as the KKK is an expression of Christianity.

Economics? Republicans would have been wise to push the old conservative virtues of thrift, enterprise, deferred gratification, self-reliance, and probity that worked in the past to foster economic growth. Paradoxically Democrats may end up with that by default as Republicans taking their economic values from the Double-Zero Decade.  Instead Dubya pushed a speculative boom that went catastrophically wrong.

For all the Republicans who think President Obama a disaster -- Dubya made him possible. 
 
*The non-entities of the late 19th century between Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt operated in a far-simpler world with far fewer dangers.

** the rap on James Buchanan.   
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,615


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: July 31, 2015, 04:38:54 AM »

He'd probably run sooner than 2016, especially if his brother never ran.
Logged
Mister Mets
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,434
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: July 31, 2015, 08:25:30 AM »
« Edited: July 31, 2015, 08:27:01 AM by Mister Mets »

I don't think Jeb would be able to run so long after his tenure in office ended. He might have run for Senate in 2010, or served in the administration of a Republican President. Or he could have been elected in his own right at an earlier point.

He'd have been a strong running mate to pretty much any prominent Republican who could have been elected from 2004-2012 (McCain, Giuliani, Romney, Frist, Allen)
Logged
hcallega
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,523
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.10, S: -3.90

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: July 31, 2015, 10:25:37 AM »

A lot would depend on 2004: Does the GOP really want to nominate the brother of the guy who just blew a 13-point (Gallup poll, October 2000)? He would be the third Bush to head their ticket in four elections. Additionally, with the contest most likely focusing on foreign policy, voters may prefer a candidate like McCain or Giuliani. Bush probably stays out and finishes his term as Governor.

Now if Gore won reelection, then the situation gets even more interesting. This scenario probably leads Betty Castor to win the Senate seat (unless Bob Graham decides to run for reelection, in which case he wins handedly). Now Bush has an interesting decision to make: Run for the White House in 2008, or wait until 2010 and run for the Senate. I think he'd probably go for the presidency. Ironically, Jeb seems to be the kind of politician who would be very comfortable in the Senate.

2008 probably sees a Republican win, what with the economy going sour (even if it's not as bad as OTL, I find it hard to believe that all of the contributing factors to the recession get butterflied away by President Gore), which means we either get a President Jeb in 2008 or probably never.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,678


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: July 31, 2015, 01:54:20 PM »
« Edited: July 31, 2015, 01:58:58 PM by The Mikado »

We wouldn't have gone into Iraq. The global recession probably wouldn't have been as bad.

He'd probably be doing very well but being the brother and son of two losers wouldn't make him the front runner.

It would probably even out and he'd be doing about the same.

You're working under the assumption that Gore beats Bush, but that's not what the OP said, the OP just asked about Bush not being president. There's also the scenario that McCain wins the GOP nomination instead of Bush, in which case we'd probably have even more wars than we did IRL.

I could easily see a situation where we have a President McCain in 2001 and by 2009 everyone is wondering how much better things would have gone with George W. Bush's promise of a compassionate conservatism with a humble role for the U.S. abroad and a commitment to avoid nation building. (Actual stance Bush ran on in 2000).

EDIT: Even if Gore was elected, there's the scenario where Gore dies in office and ultra-hawk Joe Lieberman takes the reins and sticks the Democratic Party with the blame for invading half the Middle East, making the GOP the peace party.
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,142


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: July 31, 2015, 02:05:42 PM »

Jeb would have the stigma of being the relative of two losers, he certainly wouldn't be the frontrunner now matter how much the Jeb fangirls think he would be.

First of all, the question here was about George W. Bush. So, Jeb would be the son of a Former President who is now well respected, and the brother of the 2000 Republican Presidential Nominee who lost the closest election in history.

Secondly, he'd still have has impressive resume, his vision, and his fundraising ability. The establishment would support him still, and as I have pointed out on numerous occasions, other than 1964 and 1980, the establishment has always gotten it's way as far as presidential nominees.
And has produced terrible presidents for the exceptions of Harding and Coolidge.

Please explain how Harding was a better president than, say, Eisenhower.
Logged
Blair
Blair2015
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,816
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: July 31, 2015, 02:45:53 PM »

Tony Blair would be seen as a much better PM
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: July 31, 2015, 03:43:30 PM »

If Dubya was never President, Jeb wouldn't have waited until 2016 in first place. He would be more likely to make runs in 2004 (assuming George never ran for President) or 2008. Or, had George never became Governor of Texas and he was elected in Florida on his first try, in 2000.
Logged
anvi
anvikshiki
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,400
Netherlands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: July 31, 2015, 03:51:57 PM »

Don't tease me.

Seriously, W. was a run-of-the-mill GOP president.  If it hadn't been for the astronomically bad decision to engage in the send Iraq War, he'd have been of little notice.
Logged
dudeabides
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,375
Tuvalu
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: July 31, 2015, 09:36:12 PM »

Jeb would have the stigma of being the relative of two losers, he certainly wouldn't be the frontrunner now matter how much the Jeb fangirls think he would be.

First of all, the question here was about George W. Bush. So, Jeb would be the son of a Former President who is now well respected, and the brother of the 2000 Republican Presidential Nominee who lost the closest election in history.

Secondly, he'd still have has impressive resume, his vision, and his fundraising ability. The establishment would support him still, and as I have pointed out on numerous occasions, other than 1964 and 1980, the establishment has always gotten it's way as far as presidential nominees.
And has produced terrible presidents for the exceptions of Harding and Coolidge.


He would be more respected, but many would hit him just because his father was a terrible president. He also is not that strong of a candidate. He would not be capable of balancing the budget or be good on foreign policy.

I agree about Nixon, but that's it.

Eisenhower was very good, Reagan was one of the best, the Bush's were good. 
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.049 seconds with 12 queries.