WI: Dick Cheney Became President in 2005 with Supermajorities in Congress?

[GDIS Pathe]

I'm picking and choosing PoDs to get a desired outcome because I don't want this thread to get derailed into cries of "ASB!". Just because it's implausible doesn't mean it's impossible. Landslide elections have happened before, like you said in 1964, 1936, 1972, and 1984.

Modern polarization and partisanship have made getting a landslide election a virtually impossible task in the current era

I'm trying to get people to talk about the question I asked not get bogged down in the how of it all. I get the how is important which is why I gave all these different ideas of how such a result could happen. And the assassination attempt against Bush is the main whole idea of this thread, as it's how Cheney assumes the presidency.

The question you asked requires extraordinary departures from the reality of American politics in the early 2000s and as such requires an extraordinary explanation to justify it. If you just want a "Dick Cheney is magically President has Republican super majorities in Congress to wield to his hearts content," without the justification then the ASB forum exists.

 

[Sir William Jol]

Modern polarization and partisanship have made getting a landslide election a virtually impossible task in the current era

The question you asked requires extraordinary departures from the reality of American politics in the early 2000s and as such requires an extraordinary explanation to justify it. If you just want a "Dick Cheney is magically President has Republican super majorities in Congress to wield to his hearts content," without the justification then the ASB forum exists.

But my whole point is it's not ASB. Anybody could make a thread where they what if so and so became president with absolute control of Congress. But my point is that Cheney was actually in the position of becoming president IOTL. I get that there are timelines where Cheney became President in 2005 but non where he gets a supermajority

You know if we just scrap the alternate presidential election results and just change the senate and house elections to give the Republicans a bare supermajority is that enough? Is that not ASB enough in your opinion?

 

[colonel]

Modern polarization and partisanship have made getting a landslide election a virtually impossible task in the current era

The question you asked requires extraordinary departures from the reality of American politics in the early 2000s and as such requires an extraordinary explanation to justify it. If you just want a "Dick Cheney is magically President has Republican super majorities in Congress to wield to his hearts content," without the justification then the ASB forum exists.

Unlikely does not equate to ASB. If you don’t like the scenario just ignore the thread.
Besides a delayed 9/11 you could have the problems with Edwards as the VP candidate happening earlier and coming out before the election.

 

[Sir William Jol]

Unlikely does not equate to ASB. If you don’t like the scenario just ignore the thread.
Besides a delayed 9/11 you could have the problems with Edwards as the VP candidate happening earlier and coming out before the election.

Thank you!

 

[colonel]

Jeb Bush is the most likely VP pick. Does Cheney run in 2008?

 

[GDIS Pathe]

But my whole point is it's not ASB. Anybody could make a thread where they what if so and so became president with absolute control of Congress. But my point is that Cheney was actually in the position of becoming president IOTL. I get that there are timelines where Cheney became President in 2005 but non where he gets a supermajority

Yes, Dick Cheney was in a position to become President, but the Republican Party was not in a position to get a super majority because the task of getting a super majority with modern polarization is an incredibly difficult

You know if we just scrap the alternate presidential election results and just change the senate and house elections to give the Republicans a bare supermajority is that enough? Is that not ASB enough in your opinion?

I'm not sure you're getting the point. You can't just snap your fingers and say the Republican Party magically flips 60 house seats and 5 extra senate seats (and last of which was won by Barbara Boxer by the 20 point margin).

Understanding how and why things occurred as they did are crucial to both understanding history and more relevantly, thinking about how *alternate history* will go.

Unlikely does not equate to ASB.

Okay, let me clarify, It's not impossible that Nazi Germany could've developed an atomic bomb, it's just very very unlikely and goes against everything we know about the Nazi regime and their attitudes towards nuclear physics.. In the same vein, it's not *impossible* for the Republican Party to win a 1964 style landslide in 2004, it's just very very unlikely given everything we know about modern politics and polarization.

And, not to put to fine a point on it, but the changes necessary to make such a incredibly unlikely event happen would be big, big enough that their ramifications would go far beyond the specific event in question.

Besides a delayed 9/11

Like a delayed 9/11 which not only completely changes the course of the Dubya's 1st term and that of the United States and the Middle East, it also means Democrats are more likely to win the 2002 midterms without Bush's stratosphere approval ratings, which is a ramification one might want to think about before using to say Bush will win a landslide because of it.

you could have the problems with Edwards as the VP candidate happening earlier and coming out before the election.

John Edwards having an extra-martial affair in 2004 would not have as great of an impact as him having an extra-martial affair in 2008 because people did not know Elizabeth Anania Edwards had cancer in 2004.

 

[Sir William Jol]

Yes, Dick Cheney was in a position to become President, but the Republican Party was not in a position to get a super majority because the task of getting a super majority with modern polarization is an incredibly difficult

I'm not sure you're getting the point. You can't just snap your fingers and say the Republican Party magically flips 60 house seats and 5 extra senate seats (and last of which was won by Barbara Boxer by the 20 point margin).

Understanding how and why things occurred as they did are crucial to both understanding history and more relevantly, thinking about how *alternate history* will go.

Okay, let me clarify, It's not impossible that Nazi Germany could've developed an atomic bomb, it's just very very unlikely and goes against everything we know about the Nazi regime and their attitudes towards nuclear physics.. In the same vein, it's not *impossible* for the Republican Party to win a 1964 style landslide in 2004, it's just very very unlikely given everything we know about modern politics and polarization.

And, not to put to fine a point on it, but the changes necessary to make such a incredibly unlikely event happen would be big, big enough that their ramifications would go far beyond the specific event in question.

Like a delayed 9/11 which not only completely changes the course of the Dubya's 1st term and that of the United States and the Middle East, it also means Democrats are more likely to win the 2002 midterms without Bush's stratosphere approval ratings, which is a ramification one might want to think about before using to say Bush will win a landslide because of it.

John Edwards having an extra-martial affair in 2004 would not have as great of an impact as him having an extra-martial affair in 2008 because people did not know Elizabeth Anania Edwards had cancer in 2004.

There was a wikibox I saw a while back where Bush got assassinated in 2003 and the 60s just sort of repeat in the 2000s with the 2004 election being a landslide for Cheney. Would that work as a PoD for this scenario in your opinion? Just like JFK getting assassinated earned LBJ the sympathy vote in 1964 IOTL.

 

[colonel]

Yes, Dick Cheney was in a position to become President, but the Republican Party was not in a position to get a super majority because the task of getting a super majority with modern polarization is an incredibly difficult

I'm not sure you're getting the point. You can't just snap your fingers and say the Republican Party magically flips 60 house seats and 5 extra senate seats (and last of which was won by Barbara Boxer by the 20 point margin).

Understanding how and why things occurred as they did are crucial to both understanding history and more relevantly, thinking about how *alternate history* will go.

Okay, let me clarify, It's not impossible that Nazi Germany could've developed an atomic bomb, it's just very very unlikely and goes against everything we know about the Nazi regime and their attitudes towards nuclear physics.. In the same vein, it's not *impossible* for the Republican Party to win a 1964 style landslide in 2004, it's just very very unlikely given everything we know about modern politics and polarization.

And, not to put to fine a point on it, but the changes necessary to make such a incredibly unlikely event happen would be big, big enough that their ramifications would go far beyond the specific event in question.

Like a delayed 9/11 which not only completely changes the course of the Dubya's 1st term and that of the United States and the Middle East, it also means Democrats are more likely to win the 2002 midterms without Bush's stratosphere approval ratings, which is a ramification one might want to think about before using to say Bush will win a landslide because of it.

John Edwards having an extra-martial affair in 2004 would not have as great of an impact as him having an extra-martial affair in 2008 because people did not know Elizabeth Anania Edwards had cancer in 2004.

We got it - you don’t like the scenario and don’t find it plausible. So please just go away and let the people who want to game it let it play out.

 

[RanulfC]

We got it - you don’t like the scenario and don’t find it plausible. So please just go away and let the people who want to game it let it play out.

While I get the scenario, because yes Cheney would have to have a "super-majority" to get anything passed because he was not very well liked by the majority of the Congressional "Old Guard". I think it's also valid to point out the issues with a Bush II first term that doesn't have 9/11. Bush was already butting heads with Congress (including nominally supportive Republicans) due to his pulling shenanigans where he would try to bypass Congress on items he wanted to get done.
A good example is his pulling out of the ABM treaty and then when Congress (again including Republicans) refused to authorize his missile defenses spending he instituted a BRAC (Base Realignment and Closure, this is 'bad' btw as in part to try and ensure that such would not become a political football was set up so that once started NO ONE could stop the process, this turned out to be "even worse" as OTL 9/11 happened shortly thereafter and the US STILL had to go through with realigning bases and reducing civilian/military personnel numbers) to free up money by closing and/or realigning military bases and civilian military personnel lay offs. OTL 9/11 ensured that the overall effect would be reduced and Bush would get his missile defense money as a line item on the "War on Terror" defense spending increases, TTL without 9/11 Bush's overall ratings are going to plumet that he might not get elected again. Heck Cheney might not run for VP in such a case so he might not be in the position to take over if Bush is assassinated.

Randy

 

[Ambusher11]

A good example is his pulling out of the ABM treaty and then when Congress (again including Republicans) refused to authorize his missile defenses spending he instituted a BRAC (Base Realignment and Closure, this is 'bad' btw as in part to try and ensure that such would not become a political football was set up so that once started NO ONE could stop the process, this turned out to be "even worse" as OTL 9/11 happened shortly thereafter and the US STILL had to go through with realigning bases and reducing civilian/military personnel numbers) to free up money by closing and/or realigning military bases and civilian military personnel lay offs.

Didn't both the U.S. withdrawal from the ABM treaty and the BRAC happen after 9/11 OTL (with the latter happening way after 9/11 in 2005)?

 

[RanulfC]

Didn't both the U.S. withdrawal from the ABM treaty and the BRAC happen after 9/11 OTL (with the latter happening way after 9/11 in 2005)?

The BRAC happened before 9/11 but you are right the withdrawal happened in 2005. Bush started the BRAC because of Congressional refusal to finance his planned ABM development. The reason for withdrawing was his plan to then deploy the ABM interceptors, specifically since they were not going to be dedicated to either of the two deployment options allowed in the treaty.

Randy

 

[colonel]

While I get the scenario, because yes Cheney would have to have a "super-majority" to get anything passed because he was not very well liked by the majority of the Congressional "Old Guard". I think it's also valid to point out the issues with a Bush II first term that doesn't have 9/11. Bush was already butting heads with Congress (including nominally supportive Republicans) due to his pulling shenanigans where he would try to bypass Congress on items he wanted to get done.
A good example is his pulling out of the ABM treaty and then when Congress (again including Republicans) refused to authorize his missile defenses spending he instituted a BRAC (Base Realignment and Closure, this is 'bad' btw as in part to try and ensure that such would not become a political football was set up so that once started NO ONE could stop the process, this turned out to be "even worse" as OTL 9/11 happened shortly thereafter and the US STILL had to go through with realigning bases and reducing civilian/military personnel numbers) to free up money by closing and/or realigning military bases and civilian military personnel lay offs. OTL 9/11 ensured that the overall effect would be reduced and Bush would get his missile defense money as a line item on the "War on Terror" defense spending increases, TTL without 9/11 Bush's overall ratings are going to plumet that he might not get elected again. Heck Cheney might not run for VP in such a case so he might not be in the position to take over if Bush is assassinated.

Randy

Maybe a 9/11 in 2003 that includes Bush killed in the attacks would get a GOP super majority. Especially if there was conflict between the administration and Congress before the midterms over fighting terrorism.

 

[RanulfC]

Maybe a 9/11 in 2003 that includes Bush killed in the attacks would get a GOP super majority. Especially if there was conflict between the administration and Congress before the midterms over fighting terrorism.

The main issue is the Democrats were just as ready to push the War on Terror as the Republicans but it had been the Republicans that had been blocking effective counter-strikes during the Clinton Administration and information on this was coming out along with the whole "Patriot Act" which was pissing off the Republican base during the mid-terms. Cheney just didn't have the same effect as Bush despite being VP.

Randy