From Newsgroup: alt.history.what-if

On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 14:38:41 -0000 (UTC), David Tenner
<dtenner@ameritech.net> wrote:

(7) 2009-2017: Joe Biden. (In this ATL Carol Mosely Braun has decided to
run for her old Senate seat in 2004, so Barack Obama does not run. The >Clintons are of course hardly known outside Arkansas.) Wins in November
2008 largely because of economic collapse; subsequent recovery is just >enough to allow him to be re-elected in 2012.

The easiest way to derail Clinton's career would of course be for one
of his "lady friends" to come forward with accusations that would end
his career (and likely Hilary's as well unless she somehow managed to
replace him as state governor) with extreme prejudice. (Note I'm
talking about his career not his life)

In OTL he was of course fortunate to have survived several scandals
and a cigar in the governor's office could have ended his career just
as easily as a cigar in the Oval office could have.

Obama could of course have run in a race other than 2008.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.history.what-if

On 6/13/23 14:17, The Horny Goat wrote:

On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 14:38:41 -0000 (UTC), David Tenner <dtenner@ameritech.net> wrote:

(7) 2009-2017: Joe Biden. (In this ATL Carol Mosely Braun has decided to
run for her old Senate seat in 2004, so Barack Obama does not run. The
Clintons are of course hardly known outside Arkansas.) Wins in November
2008 largely because of economic collapse; subsequent recovery is just
enough to allow him to be re-elected in 2012.

The easiest way to derail Clinton's career would of course be for one
of his "lady friends" to come forward with accusations that would end
his career (and likely Hilary's as well unless she somehow managed to replace him as state governor) with extreme prejudice. (Note I'm
talking about his career not his life)

In OTL he was of course fortunate to have survived several scandals
and a cigar in the governor's office could have ended his career just
as easily as a cigar in the Oval office could have.

Obama could of course have run in a race other than 2008.

Some of this thread is no longer showing on my server mirror.

Double checking.

What does 'silent generation' mean?

Has anyone ever done 'the Philadelphia convention decides to
have no presidency'?

Personally I think the office is extremely destructive to civilization
as a whole. It should be abolished if possible.

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.history.what-if

In article <u7ulpf$3nh41$1@dont-email.me>, Trolidous <trolidous@x.net>
wrote:

On 6/13/23 14:17, The Horny Goat wrote:

On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 14:38:41 -0000 (UTC), David Tenner <dtenner@ameritech.net> wrote:

(7) 2009-2017: Joe Biden. (In this ATL Carol Mosely Braun has decided to
run for her old Senate seat in 2004, so Barack Obama does not run. The
Clintons are of course hardly known outside Arkansas.) Wins in November
2008 largely because of economic collapse; subsequent recovery is just
enough to allow him to be re-elected in 2012.

The easiest way to derail Clinton's career would of course be for one
of his "lady friends" to come forward with accusations that would end
his career (and likely Hilary's as well unless she somehow managed to replace him as state governor) with extreme prejudice. (Note I'm
talking about his career not his life)

In OTL he was of course fortunate to have survived several scandals
and a cigar in the governor's office could have ended his career just
as easily as a cigar in the Oval office could have.

Obama could of course have run in a race other than 2008.

Some of this thread is no longer showing on my server mirror.

Double checking.

What does 'silent generation' mean?

The silent generation is the generation before the Baby-Boomers, thus
born between about 1926 and 1945.
--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_. rCo-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward robertaw@drizzle.com
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.history.what-if

On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 14:38:41 -0000 (UTC), David Tenner
<dtenner@ameritech.net> wrote:

(I realize that from (7) on we may be dealing with current politics, which
I generally try to avoid here, but I don't think most of this post can be
so classified.)

I'd argue that MOST of your timeline from 1989 forward is our time
line with the names changed.

I know it sounds like you 'butterflied away" 9/11 but 9/11 was NOT (in
OTL) bin Laden's first attempt on NYC.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.history.what-if

On Friday, December 22, 2023 at 2:36:19rC>AM UTC, The Horny Goat wrote:

On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 14:38:41 -0000 (UTC), David Tenner <dte...@ameritech.net> wrote:

(I realize that from (7) on we may be dealing with current politics, which >I generally try to avoid here, but I don't think most of this post can be >so classified.)

I'd argue that MOST of your timeline from 1989 forward is our time
line with the names changed.

I know it sounds like you 'butterflied away" 9/11 but 9/11 was NOT (in
OTL) bin Laden's first attempt on NYC.

The late David Tenner may or may not be reading your post, but he will not be in a position to respond to it.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.history.what-if

Graham, thank god answering to years old posts by people who are now elderly, or dead will end in 7 weeks.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.history.what-if

In OTL the US presidency went directly from the GI Generation

(GHW Bush)

to the Boomers (Bill Clinton, GW Bush, Obama, Trump) with no

Silent

Generation presidents (at least so far--but two of the

front-runners for

the Democratic nomination would qualify!).

I here propose a timeline where all the US presidents from 1974

onward

were from the "Silent Generation" (we'll use 1928 to

1945 as the birth

dates). I have decided to make the party identities of the

presidents the

same as in OTL--otherwise I could go back to 1968 and have

nothing but

Silent Generation presidents starting with Ted Kennedy getting

elected

that year!

(1) 1974-77: Donald Rumsfeld. A surprise choice by Nixon for

vice-

president on Agnew's resignation; becomes POTUS on Nixon's

resignation. He

narrowly prevails in 1976 GOP primaries over Ronald Reagan's

challenge,

which weakens Rumsfeld in November.

(2) 1977-81: Birch Bayh. As I noted last year, "his only

hope then was to

have the party's liberal wing (which I'll define as

"everyone to the left

of Carter") coalesce behind him. This did not happen; in the

New Hampshire

primary, he finished third, behind Carter and Udall, while

fourth-place

Fred Harris also undoubtedly took some votes that might otherwise

have

gone to Bayh. When he finished a disastrous seventh in the

Massachusetts

primary, his campaign was over. If Udall hadn't run, would Bayh

have had a

chance--perhaps as a Midwesterner he can win the Wisconsin

primary which

Udall narrowly lost to Carter?"

(3) 1981-89: Phil Crane. After Reagan's surprise decision not to

run (a

near-assassination of Bayh in 1979 makes Nancy persuade him not

to), Crane

becomes the great hope of the GOP right and wins the nomination

against

split opposition from moderates and moderate-conservatives

(Rumsfeld,

Howard Baker, GHW Bush, John Anderson, etc.) Crane defeats the

unpopular

Bayh in November 1980 and is re-elected in 1984, after the

Federal Reserve

Board, confident that the recession has squeezed inflation out of

the

economy, eases up.

(4) 1989-93 Jack Kemp. Crane's VP, elected POTUS in 1988. He

represents a

kinder and gentler version of Crane's policies (he is a bit more

open to

Gorbachev and helps end the Cold War). He loses popularity after

the

recession of the early 1990's.

(5) 1993-2001: Mario Cuomo. In this ATL he decides to run, and as

a

representative of old-fashioned labor-liberalism defeats a split

primary

opposition of "new" Democrats of one sort or another

(Bill Clinton, Jerry

Brown, Paul Tsongas...). He defeats Kemp in November; pundits

disagree on

what role if any Ross Perot's third party candidacy played in the

outcome.

He is re-elected in 1996, largely thanks to a good economy.

(6) 2001-2009: John McCain. (Remember that the Bush family is far

less

influential in this ATL.) Narrowly defeats Cuomo's VP Al Gore in

November

2000, re-elected in 2004.

(7) 2009-2017: Joe Biden. (In this ATL Carol Mosely Braun has

decided to

run for her old Senate seat in 2004, so Barack Obama does not

run. The

Clintons are of course hardly known outside Arkansas.) Wins in

November

2008 largely because of economic collapse; subsequent recovery is

just

enough to allow him to be re-elected in 2012.

(8) 2017-present: Rudy Giuliani (in this ATL he finally

"evolves" on

abortion sufficiently to win religious conservatives over. Some

big

terrorist attack that was narrowly foiled in OTL makes terrorism

the big

issue again.)

And the current Democratic frontrunners in this ATL are Paul

Wellstone

(who didn't die in a plane crash in 2002...) and John Kerry!

(I realize that from (7) on we may be dealing with current

politics, which

I generally try to avoid here, but I don't think most of this

post can be

so classified.)

--
David Tenner
dtenner@ameritech.net

David Tenner wrote:

The inauguration of Rudolph William Louis Giuliani as the 45th

President of the United States - January 20, 2017 - President
Giuliani

Giulliani as President. That photo and the thought are scary.


This is a response to the post seen at: http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=514095490#514095490


--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.history.what-if

MummyChunk <mummycullen@gmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid> wrote:

In OTL the US presidency went directly from the GI Generation

(GHW Bush)

to the Boomers (Bill Clinton, GW Bush, Obama, Trump) with no

Silent

Generation presidents (at least so far--but two of the

front-runners for

the Democratic nomination would qualify!).

I here propose a timeline where all the US presidents from 1974

onward

were from the "Silent Generation" (we'll use 1928 to

1945 as the birth

dates).

Strauss and Howe,who coined the term,used 1925 to 1942,
though they are in a minority on starting the Boom early.

(Using 1928 as a starter would mean that the LDS Church has
not had a Silent generation president YET,since their 2008-18
president was born in 1927 and was succeeded by the incumbent
who turns 100 in September 2024,the heir apparent was born 1932).

I have decided to make the party identities of the

presidents the

same as in OTL--otherwise I could go back to 1968 and have

nothing but

Silent Generation presidents starting with Ted Kennedy getting

elected

that year!

That assumption means that the personalities chosen make
no difference to the party moods of the country?

This is a response to the post seen at: http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=514095490#514095490

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.history.what-if

Does not "Silent Generation" mean "too young for World War II and too old for Vietnam" as that's what makes them silent = they have no war stories to tell (this common definition acknolwedges that Korea has largely been forgotten).
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2