Guess the POD?

[brucejoel99]

I didn't know where else to put this...

Below is list of elections, starting with an election listed as it occurred IRL, before, during, &/or after which a POD occurred that produced alternate election results thereafter. Guess what it is that happened to make the numbers what they were after the POD:

1992: Clinton 370, Bush 168
1996: Clinton 436, Dole 166, Perot 5
2000: Gore 311, Bush 296
2004: Gore 318, McCain 289
2008: Jeb! 305, Lieberman 302
2012: Hillary 308, Jeb! 299
2016: Trump 336, Hillary 271
2020: Bayh 357, Trump 250

So, the premise is that the previous poster creates a list like such, & then the next poster comes up with an explanation as to what happened that produced said results & either shares a list of their own so that the process can keep on repeating or passes on their opportunity to make the next list.

(And feel free to reveal your POD or keep reposting your results if nobody can guess correctly.)

[OSR STANDS WITH PALESTINE]

Idk what list to make but your POD is most definitely Bill Clinton having a sexually transmitted disease and due to it, not having the Lewinsky affair and being overall less scrutinised, also being asthmatic so he doesn’t smoke weed.

[brucejoel99]

Idk what list to make but your POD is most definitely Bill Clinton having a sexually transmitted disease and due to it, not having the Lewinsky affair and being overall less scrutinised, also being asthmatic so he doesn’t smoke weed.

How does that explain 607 EVs beginning with 1996 & the resultant results?

[One Term Floridian]

Did we start admitting a ton of new states or did we expand the House and Senate? Lmao

Clearly the POD is during Clinton's first term. Him not meeting Lewinsky? I doubt that alone would be responsible for this much of a change...

[brucejoel99]

Did we start admitting a ton of new states or did we expand the House and Senate? Lmao

Warmer & warmer...

Clearly the POD is during Clinton's first term. Him not meeting Lewinsky? I doubt that alone would be responsible for this much of a change...

Cold. Just don't be afraid to think outside the box here.

[GM Team Member and Deputy PPT WB]

NAFTA basically ends up becoming a thing that annexes Canada and Mexico?

[OSR STANDS WITH PALESTINE]

Idk what list to make but your POD is most definitely Bill Clinton having a sexually transmitted disease and due to it, not having the Lewinsky affair and being overall less scrutinised, also being asthmatic so he doesn’t smoke weed.

How does that explain 607 EVs beginning with 1996 & the resultant results?

Bill Clinton goes on tv and plays a song on his saxophone that’s so good that he does, in fact, unite the world with music

[MATTROSE94]

The Mexican financial crisis of 1995 worsens to the point that the US annexes all of Mexico prior to the 1996 Presidential election. This results in Bill Clinton’s popularity skyrocketing due to the large amount of territory added to the US.

[LAB-LIB]

We change the way electoral votes are allocated because Perot got so many votes and didn't get any electors?

[brucejoel99]

NAFTA basically ends up becoming a thing that annexes Canada and Mexico?

Ding-ding-ding!

The POD is the 1988 Canadian federal election campaign, during which a Samantha Smith-like girl goes viral for asking Mulroney at a campaign event why everybody who's against free trade keeps saying that Americans are evil when she has an American cousin who she knows would never do anything to hurt Canadians like her. After Meech Lake fails, an American diplomat's off-hand comment made during preliminary NAFTA negotiations about how everything would be so much simpler as one country without border controls is picked up on a hot mic & goes viral, & to the punditry's shock, a poll drops showing 80% support for merger. At a town hall, Poppy Bush is asked by the aforementioned viral Canadian girl's American cousin if merger could happen, & he says that it's a very complicated issue but if that was what enough of both the American & Canadian people wanted, then it'd be his & Mulroney's joint obligation as their people's leaders to seek that desired goal, albeit with all due reasoned & responsible consideration, obviously; like her cousin, she goes viral.

ITTL, these changes result in Charlottetown negotiations being substituted by a diplomatically-authorized offshoot of NAFTA negotiations between American & Canadian lawmakers, to work out the kinks of how a potential merger might proceed. In December 1992, during the Bush/Clinton presidential transition, an agreement is reached: upon Canadian integration into the Union, the House of Representatives would be increased in size by 33 to be apportioned among the Canadian states as the 435 are apportioned among the American states; each of the 10 Canadian states would also get their 2 Senators, & in an Australian-like compromise, D.C., the 5 American territories, & the 3 Canadian territories (implementation of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement being expedited ITTL) would receive formal constitutional representation in the form of 1 Representative & 1 Senator each, with the VP - as a nominal resident of D.C. by virtue of the Naval Observatory - receiving formal voting power in the Senate to appease D.C.'s local democratic backsliding concerns on account of the new system otherwise entitling them to only 2 EVs whereas the 23rd Amendment had entitled them to 3 for nearly 3 decades by then.

In early February 1993, the package is formally submitted to the Canadian people, with ratification - to take effect on January 3rd, 1995 - conditioned on approval by a majority of the Canadian people as well as a majority of Canadian voters in every province & territory alike: the package is approved 60%-40% overall, & the closest regional vote is a 51.5%-48.5% victory for the pro-ratification campaign in the Northwest Territories. The result being thus, the October 1993 election is a largely subdued campaign fought on the matter of steady domestic preparation of the ratification agreement's final implementation in the run-up to merger day. Butterflies as a result of the timeline's changes see Mulroney & the PCs still win, & following the merger, pursuant to the congressional enabling act thereof (serving as Congress' invocation of its power granted by TTL's 28th Amendment - domestic constitutional implementation of the Canadian agreement ratified swiftly by the 38 after the Feb. referendum - to enforce it by appropriate legislation), Clinton nominates & the Senate confirms Mulroney to serve as the first-ever Secretary of Canadian Affairs; he serves through the end of Clinton's 1st term, everybody soon realizing that his being the pre-merger Canadian PM didn't mean that he'd necessarily get along with Clinton if they had to serve in the same administration together, & Jean Chrétien is his successor.

Post-merger discontent on the Canadian side of the border enables Dole to carry New Brunswick's 4 & PEI's 3 EVs as well as Perot to win Alberta's 5 EVs in 1996, but its popularity elsewhere in the country enables Clinton to sweep its remainder. The existence of Canadian EVs enables Gore to carry 2000, although W. repeats the GOP's New Brunswick win (albeit for what would be the last time), narrowly carries British Columbia, & begins with this election the permanent flip of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, & - as might be expected - Alberta into the GOP column. Butterflies ensure no 9/11, so the lack of both Afghan & Iraqi invasions enables Gore to establish himself as a competently stable manager of the nation's surplus; the lack of a war neuters McCain's status as a hawk, & although he still carries British Columbia, Gore's EC advantages gives him a 2nd term. The housing market still does what the housing market will do; Hillary sees the writing on the wall &, wanting to be President, says hell no to a 2008 run, leaving Lieberman to be who everybody assumes will be a sacrificial lamb but who, to everybody's surprise, manages to keep it startlingly close thanks to the Democratic EC advantage (Lieberman retains the Rust Belt & Ontario, but Jeb! still pulls British Columbia off for the GOP), with Jeb!'s 0.9% win in NC ultimately being what still manages to put him in the White House nonetheless. Lack of economic progress allows Hillary - who campaigns on everybody's fond memories of her husband's administration & its economic reputation - to pull off a 20-years-later repeat of 1992's "Clinton defeats Pres. Bush" storyline, but Trump runs & does a Trump in 2016, losing British Columbia for the first of soon to be many times for the GOP but narrowly claiming the Rust Belt & Ontario for the first time; Clinton's VP, Bayh, comes back & is TTL's Biden in 2020 after Trump keeps doing Trumps for the entirety of his presidency.

And with that... *Skip* (but anybody should please feel free to create your own list for us to make guesses about!!)

(And for the curious, Idk if TTL butterflies Monica away, but it does butterfly Carol Moseley Braun's 1998 loss away, meaning that unless he goes for Governor or finds another congressional seat in the Chicago area to claim as his own, Barack Obama is a State Senator in Chicago whom you've never heard of beyond his 2000 primary loss to Bobby Rush.)

[LAB-LIB]

I guess I'll try one
Senate Elections
2004: Republicans: 51 (-), Democrats 49 (-)
2006: Democrats 55 (+6), Republicans 45 (-6)
2008: Democrats 63 (+8), Republicans 37 (-8)
2010: Democrats 61 (-2), Republicans 39 (+2)

I'm just going to stop here. I should note that the presidential results remain the same.

[brucejoel99]

I guess I'll try one
Senate Elections
2004: Republicans: 51 (-), Democrats 49 (-)
2006: Democrats 55 (+6), Republicans 45 (-6)
2008: Democrats 63 (+8), Republicans 37 (-8)
2010: Democrats 61 (-2), Republicans 39 (+2)

I'm just going to stop here. I should note that the presidential results remain the same.

2004 goes the same, but during the first half of W.'s 2nd term, the fallout in Iraq manages to be worse than it was IRL, meaning gas prices end up even higher than they ended up IRL as a result, &/or Katrina is somehow handled worse than it was IRL; either way an even worse-than-IRL GOP performance in the 2006 midterms (i.e., Sen. Harold Ford, Sen. Jim Pederson, etc.) is precipitated thereby, & then an earlier- &/or worse-than-IRL economic collapse in 2008 precipitates an even worse-than-IRL GOP performance in that year's Senate races (i.e., bye-bye Mitch McConnell, etc.) alongside the Obama/Biden landslide over McCain/Palin. More Senators means a larger stimulus & Obama's first 2 years just going much more smoothly in general (i.e., at least the public option), & perhaps intel butterflies enable the ObL mission to go ahead sometime before the midterms in 2010 instead of 7 months later & give Obama that popularity boost too, but either way, better-than-IRL Democratic legislative performance minimizes losses in 2010, with Dems being filibuster-proof through '13.

Is this in the ballpark?

[LAB-LIB]

I guess I'll try one
Senate Elections
2004: Republicans: 51 (-), Democrats 49 (-)
2006: Democrats 55 (+6), Republicans 45 (-6)
2008: Democrats 63 (+8), Republicans 37 (-8)
2010: Democrats 61 (-2), Republicans 39 (+2)

I'm just going to stop here. I should note that the presidential results remain the same.

2004 goes the same, but during the first half of W.'s 2nd term, the fallout in Iraq manages to be worse than it was IRL, meaning gas prices end up even higher than they ended up IRL as a result, &/or Katrina is somehow handled worse than it was IRL; either way an even worse-than-IRL GOP performance in the 2006 midterms (i.e., Sen. Harold Ford, Sen. Jim Pederson, etc.) is precipitated thereby, & then an earlier- &/or worse-than-IRL economic collapse in 2008 precipitates an even worse-than-IRL GOP performance in that year's Senate races (i.e., bye-bye Mitch McConnell, etc.) alongside the Obama/Biden landslide over McCain/Palin. More Senators means a larger stimulus & Obama's first 2 years just going much more smoothly in general (i.e., at least the public option), & perhaps intel butterflies enable the ObL mission to go ahead sometime before the midterms in 2010 instead of 7 months later & give Obama that popularity boost too, but either way, better-than-IRL Democratic legislative performance minimizes losses in 2010, with Dems being filibuster-proof through '13.

Is this in the ballpark?

You're actually pretty much spot on about why 2010 doesn't go as bad, more senators, but take a look at 2004 itself and why Democrats somehow won 49 seats instead of just 45 seats. A couple of key decisions that had an impact on senate races only and gave the Democrats a better playing field are what really caused it.

[brucejoel99]

I guess I'll try one
Senate Elections
2004: Republicans: 51 (-), Democrats 49 (-)
2006: Democrats 55 (+6), Republicans 45 (-6)
2008: Democrats 63 (+8), Republicans 37 (-8)
2010: Democrats 61 (-2), Republicans 39 (+2)

I'm just going to stop here. I should note that the presidential results remain the same.

2004 goes the same, but during the first half of W.'s 2nd term, the fallout in Iraq manages to be worse than it was IRL, meaning gas prices end up even higher than they ended up IRL as a result, &/or Katrina is somehow handled worse than it was IRL; either way an even worse-than-IRL GOP performance in the 2006 midterms (i.e., Sen. Harold Ford, Sen. Jim Pederson, etc.) is precipitated thereby, & then an earlier- &/or worse-than-IRL economic collapse in 2008 precipitates an even worse-than-IRL GOP performance in that year's Senate races (i.e., bye-bye Mitch McConnell, etc.) alongside the Obama/Biden landslide over McCain/Palin. More Senators means a larger stimulus & Obama's first 2 years just going much more smoothly in general (i.e., at least the public option), & perhaps intel butterflies enable the ObL mission to go ahead sometime before the midterms in 2010 instead of 7 months later & give Obama that popularity boost too, but either way, better-than-IRL Democratic legislative performance minimizes losses in 2010, with Dems being filibuster-proof through '13.

Is this in the ballpark?

You're actually pretty much spot on about why 2010 doesn't go as bad, more senators, but take a look at 2004 itself and why Democrats somehow won 49 seats instead of just 45 seats. A couple of key decisions that had an impact on senate races only and gave the Democrats a better playing field are what really caused it.

Ah, my b for misreading. Then I presume either less obstruction of W. judges (& ergo one less front for the GOP to attack Dems on in 2004) or more emboldened opposition against Iraq sees Daschle & 3 of Castor/Mongiardo/Knowles/Bowles win their Senate races in '04; no new non-IRL Dem. Sens. in 2006 (so an L for Ford, Pederson, etc.) or 2008 (so a W for Mitch, etc.), but - as you confirm - at least 63 (& Ig 64 at least for a few months if Specter still switches, even if Brown still wins the special election to replace Kennedy) Dem. Sens. ensures more legislative successes, minimizing seat losses in 2010?

[LAB-LIB]

I guess I'll try one
Senate Elections
2004: Republicans: 51 (-), Democrats 49 (-)
2006: Democrats 55 (+6), Republicans 45 (-6)
2008: Democrats 63 (+8), Republicans 37 (-8)
2010: Democrats 61 (-2), Republicans 39 (+2)

I'm just going to stop here. I should note that the presidential results remain the same.

2004 goes the same, but during the first half of W.'s 2nd term, the fallout in Iraq manages to be worse than it was IRL, meaning gas prices end up even higher than they ended up IRL as a result, &/or Katrina is somehow handled worse than it was IRL; either way an even worse-than-IRL GOP performance in the 2006 midterms (i.e., Sen. Harold Ford, Sen. Jim Pederson, etc.) is precipitated thereby, & then an earlier- &/or worse-than-IRL economic collapse in 2008 precipitates an even worse-than-IRL GOP performance in that year's Senate races (i.e., bye-bye Mitch McConnell, etc.) alongside the Obama/Biden landslide over McCain/Palin. More Senators means a larger stimulus & Obama's first 2 years just going much more smoothly in general (i.e., at least the public option), & perhaps intel butterflies enable the ObL mission to go ahead sometime before the midterms in 2010 instead of 7 months later & give Obama that popularity boost too, but either way, better-than-IRL Democratic legislative performance minimizes losses in 2010, with Dems being filibuster-proof through '13.

Is this in the ballpark?

You're actually pretty much spot on about why 2010 doesn't go as bad, more senators, but take a look at 2004 itself and why Democrats somehow won 49 seats instead of just 45 seats. A couple of key decisions that had an impact on senate races only and gave the Democrats a better playing field are what really caused it.

Ah, my b for misreading. Then I presume either less obstruction of W. judges (& ergo one less front for the GOP to attack Dems on in 2004) or more emboldened opposition against Iraq sees Daschle & 3 of Castor/Mongiardo/Knowles/Bowles win their Senate races in '04; no new non-IRL Dem. Sens. in 2006 (so an L for Ford, Pederson, etc.) or 2008 (so a W for Mitch, etc.), but - as you confirm - at least 63 (& Ig 64 at least for a few months if Specter still switches, even if Brown still wins the special election to replace Kennedy) Dem. Sens. ensures more legislative successes, minimizing seat losses in 2010?

You're getting closer, my two PODs take place before the 2004 elections. Daschle and Mongiardo win, Knowles and Bowles lose.

I'll have kind of a big giveway here, Castor doesn't win or lose, Daschle and Mongiardo win because the map is better.

[brucejoel99]

I guess I'll try one
Senate Elections
2004: Republicans: 51 (-), Democrats 49 (-)
2006: Democrats 55 (+6), Republicans 45 (-6)
2008: Democrats 63 (+8), Republicans 37 (-8)
2010: Democrats 61 (-2), Republicans 39 (+2)

I'm just going to stop here. I should note that the presidential results remain the same.

2004 goes the same, but during the first half of W.'s 2nd term, the fallout in Iraq manages to be worse than it was IRL, meaning gas prices end up even higher than they ended up IRL as a result, &/or Katrina is somehow handled worse than it was IRL; either way an even worse-than-IRL GOP performance in the 2006 midterms (i.e., Sen. Harold Ford, Sen. Jim Pederson, etc.) is precipitated thereby, & then an earlier- &/or worse-than-IRL economic collapse in 2008 precipitates an even worse-than-IRL GOP performance in that year's Senate races (i.e., bye-bye Mitch McConnell, etc.) alongside the Obama/Biden landslide over McCain/Palin. More Senators means a larger stimulus & Obama's first 2 years just going much more smoothly in general (i.e., at least the public option), & perhaps intel butterflies enable the ObL mission to go ahead sometime before the midterms in 2010 instead of 7 months later & give Obama that popularity boost too, but either way, better-than-IRL Democratic legislative performance minimizes losses in 2010, with Dems being filibuster-proof through '13.

Is this in the ballpark?

You're actually pretty much spot on about why 2010 doesn't go as bad, more senators, but take a look at 2004 itself and why Democrats somehow won 49 seats instead of just 45 seats. A couple of key decisions that had an impact on senate races only and gave the Democrats a better playing field are what really caused it.

Ah, my b for misreading. Then I presume either less obstruction of W. judges (& ergo one less front for the GOP to attack Dems on in 2004) or more emboldened opposition against Iraq sees Daschle & 3 of Castor/Mongiardo/Knowles/Bowles win their Senate races in '04; no new non-IRL Dem. Sens. in 2006 (so an L for Ford, Pederson, etc.) or 2008 (so a W for Mitch, etc.), but - as you confirm - at least 63 (& Ig 64 at least for a few months if Specter still switches, even if Brown still wins the special election to replace Kennedy) Dem. Sens. ensures more legislative successes, minimizing seat losses in 2010?

You're getting closer, my two PODs take place before the 2004 elections. Daschle and Mongiardo win, Knowles and Bowles lose.

I'll have kind of a big giveway here, Castor doesn't win or lose, Daschle and Mongiardo win because the map is better.

Bob Graham, in his capacity as Senate Intel Chair for Iraq, opposes the war even more staunchly than he did IRL & instead of retiring thereafter like he did IRL, commits himself to further public congressional investigation of W.'s military affairs; holding the administration to account for its lies more than IRL emboldens Democratic electoral prospects, incl. Graham's?

[LAB-LIB]

I guess I'll try one
Senate Elections
2004: Republicans: 51 (-), Democrats 49 (-)
2006: Democrats 55 (+6), Republicans 45 (-6)
2008: Democrats 63 (+8), Republicans 37 (-8)
2010: Democrats 61 (-2), Republicans 39 (+2)

I'm just going to stop here. I should note that the presidential results remain the same.

2004 goes the same, but during the first half of W.'s 2nd term, the fallout in Iraq manages to be worse than it was IRL, meaning gas prices end up even higher than they ended up IRL as a result, &/or Katrina is somehow handled worse than it was IRL; either way an even worse-than-IRL GOP performance in the 2006 midterms (i.e., Sen. Harold Ford, Sen. Jim Pederson, etc.) is precipitated thereby, & then an earlier- &/or worse-than-IRL economic collapse in 2008 precipitates an even worse-than-IRL GOP performance in that year's Senate races (i.e., bye-bye Mitch McConnell, etc.) alongside the Obama/Biden landslide over McCain/Palin. More Senators means a larger stimulus & Obama's first 2 years just going much more smoothly in general (i.e., at least the public option), & perhaps intel butterflies enable the ObL mission to go ahead sometime before the midterms in 2010 instead of 7 months later & give Obama that popularity boost too, but either way, better-than-IRL Democratic legislative performance minimizes losses in 2010, with Dems being filibuster-proof through '13.

Is this in the ballpark?

You're actually pretty much spot on about why 2010 doesn't go as bad, more senators, but take a look at 2004 itself and why Democrats somehow won 49 seats instead of just 45 seats. A couple of key decisions that had an impact on senate races only and gave the Democrats a better playing field are what really caused it.

Ah, my b for misreading. Then I presume either less obstruction of W. judges (& ergo one less front for the GOP to attack Dems on in 2004) or more emboldened opposition against Iraq sees Daschle & 3 of Castor/Mongiardo/Knowles/Bowles win their Senate races in '04; no new non-IRL Dem. Sens. in 2006 (so an L for Ford, Pederson, etc.) or 2008 (so a W for Mitch, etc.), but - as you confirm - at least 63 (& Ig 64 at least for a few months if Specter still switches, even if Brown still wins the special election to replace Kennedy) Dem. Sens. ensures more legislative successes, minimizing seat losses in 2010?

You're getting closer, my two PODs take place before the 2004 elections. Daschle and Mongiardo win, Knowles and Bowles lose.

I'll have kind of a big giveway here, Castor doesn't win or lose, Daschle and Mongiardo win because the map is better.

Bob Graham, in his capacity as Senate Intel Chair for Iraq, opposes the war even more staunchly than he did IRL & instead of retiring thereafter like he did IRL, commits himself to further public congressional investigation of W.'s military affairs; holding the administration to account for its lies more than IRL emboldens Democratic electoral prospects, incl. Graham's?

Bob Graham running again is one of two! Can you guess the other? It's very similar.

[brucejoel99]

I guess I'll try one
Senate Elections
2004: Republicans: 51 (-), Democrats 49 (-)
2006: Democrats 55 (+6), Republicans 45 (-6)
2008: Democrats 63 (+8), Republicans 37 (-8)
2010: Democrats 61 (-2), Republicans 39 (+2)

I'm just going to stop here. I should note that the presidential results remain the same.

2004 goes the same, but during the first half of W.'s 2nd term, the fallout in Iraq manages to be worse than it was IRL, meaning gas prices end up even higher than they ended up IRL as a result, &/or Katrina is somehow handled worse than it was IRL; either way an even worse-than-IRL GOP performance in the 2006 midterms (i.e., Sen. Harold Ford, Sen. Jim Pederson, etc.) is precipitated thereby, & then an earlier- &/or worse-than-IRL economic collapse in 2008 precipitates an even worse-than-IRL GOP performance in that year's Senate races (i.e., bye-bye Mitch McConnell, etc.) alongside the Obama/Biden landslide over McCain/Palin. More Senators means a larger stimulus & Obama's first 2 years just going much more smoothly in general (i.e., at least the public option), & perhaps intel butterflies enable the ObL mission to go ahead sometime before the midterms in 2010 instead of 7 months later & give Obama that popularity boost too, but either way, better-than-IRL Democratic legislative performance minimizes losses in 2010, with Dems being filibuster-proof through '13.

Is this in the ballpark?

You're actually pretty much spot on about why 2010 doesn't go as bad, more senators, but take a look at 2004 itself and why Democrats somehow won 49 seats instead of just 45 seats. A couple of key decisions that had an impact on senate races only and gave the Democrats a better playing field are what really caused it.

Ah, my b for misreading. Then I presume either less obstruction of W. judges (& ergo one less front for the GOP to attack Dems on in 2004) or more emboldened opposition against Iraq sees Daschle & 3 of Castor/Mongiardo/Knowles/Bowles win their Senate races in '04; no new non-IRL Dem. Sens. in 2006 (so an L for Ford, Pederson, etc.) or 2008 (so a W for Mitch, etc.), but - as you confirm - at least 63 (& Ig 64 at least for a few months if Specter still switches, even if Brown still wins the special election to replace Kennedy) Dem. Sens. ensures more legislative successes, minimizing seat losses in 2010?

You're getting closer, my two PODs take place before the 2004 elections. Daschle and Mongiardo win, Knowles and Bowles lose.

I'll have kind of a big giveway here, Castor doesn't win or lose, Daschle and Mongiardo win because the map is better.

Bob Graham, in his capacity as Senate Intel Chair for Iraq, opposes the war even more staunchly than he did IRL & instead of retiring thereafter like he did IRL, commits himself to further public congressional investigation of W.'s military affairs; holding the administration to account for its lies more than IRL emboldens Democratic electoral prospects, incl. Graham's?

Bob Graham running again is one of two! Can you guess the other? It's very similar.

John Breaux running again?

[LAB-LIB]

I guess I'll try one
Senate Elections
2004: Republicans: 51 (-), Democrats 49 (-)
2006: Democrats 55 (+6), Republicans 45 (-6)
2008: Democrats 63 (+8), Republicans 37 (-8)
2010: Democrats 61 (-2), Republicans 39 (+2)

I'm just going to stop here. I should note that the presidential results remain the same.

2004 goes the same, but during the first half of W.'s 2nd term, the fallout in Iraq manages to be worse than it was IRL, meaning gas prices end up even higher than they ended up IRL as a result, &/or Katrina is somehow handled worse than it was IRL; either way an even worse-than-IRL GOP performance in the 2006 midterms (i.e., Sen. Harold Ford, Sen. Jim Pederson, etc.) is precipitated thereby, & then an earlier- &/or worse-than-IRL economic collapse in 2008 precipitates an even worse-than-IRL GOP performance in that year's Senate races (i.e., bye-bye Mitch McConnell, etc.) alongside the Obama/Biden landslide over McCain/Palin. More Senators means a larger stimulus & Obama's first 2 years just going much more smoothly in general (i.e., at least the public option), & perhaps intel butterflies enable the ObL mission to go ahead sometime before the midterms in 2010 instead of 7 months later & give Obama that popularity boost too, but either way, better-than-IRL Democratic legislative performance minimizes losses in 2010, with Dems being filibuster-proof through '13.

Is this in the ballpark?

You're actually pretty much spot on about why 2010 doesn't go as bad, more senators, but take a look at 2004 itself and why Democrats somehow won 49 seats instead of just 45 seats. A couple of key decisions that had an impact on senate races only and gave the Democrats a better playing field are what really caused it.

Ah, my b for misreading. Then I presume either less obstruction of W. judges (& ergo one less front for the GOP to attack Dems on in 2004) or more emboldened opposition against Iraq sees Daschle & 3 of Castor/Mongiardo/Knowles/Bowles win their Senate races in '04; no new non-IRL Dem. Sens. in 2006 (so an L for Ford, Pederson, etc.) or 2008 (so a W for Mitch, etc.), but - as you confirm - at least 63 (& Ig 64 at least for a few months if Specter still switches, even if Brown still wins the special election to replace Kennedy) Dem. Sens. ensures more legislative successes, minimizing seat losses in 2010?

You're getting closer, my two PODs take place before the 2004 elections. Daschle and Mongiardo win, Knowles and Bowles lose.

I'll have kind of a big giveway here, Castor doesn't win or lose, Daschle and Mongiardo win because the map is better.

Bob Graham, in his capacity as Senate Intel Chair for Iraq, opposes the war even more staunchly than he did IRL & instead of retiring thereafter like he did IRL, commits himself to further public congressional investigation of W.'s military affairs; holding the administration to account for its lies more than IRL emboldens Democratic electoral prospects, incl. Graham's?

Bob Graham running again is one of two! Can you guess the other? It's very similar.

John Breaux running again?

Ding Ding Ding! Bob Graham and John Breaux running again. They both seriously considered it and they both would have easily won. WIth two fewer seats to defend, I think Daschle would have held on in South Dakota and Mongiardo would have won in Kentucky, they both only lost by a point. That would've given the Democrats four more seats, made it much easier for them to pass their agenda, and we might have averted the mess we're in today. It's amazing how such seemingly unimportant things can have such big impacts down the road.

[MATTROSE94]

I guess I'll try one
Senate Elections
2004: Republicans: 51 (-), Democrats 49 (-)
2006: Democrats 55 (+6), Republicans 45 (-6)
2008: Democrats 63 (+8), Republicans 37 (-8)
2010: Democrats 61 (-2), Republicans 39 (+2)

I'm just going to stop here. I should note that the presidential results remain the same.

2004 goes the same, but during the first half of W.'s 2nd term, the fallout in Iraq manages to be worse than it was IRL, meaning gas prices end up even higher than they ended up IRL as a result, &/or Katrina is somehow handled worse than it was IRL; either way an even worse-than-IRL GOP performance in the 2006 midterms (i.e., Sen. Harold Ford, Sen. Jim Pederson, etc.) is precipitated thereby, & then an earlier- &/or worse-than-IRL economic collapse in 2008 precipitates an even worse-than-IRL GOP performance in that year's Senate races (i.e., bye-bye Mitch McConnell, etc.) alongside the Obama/Biden landslide over McCain/Palin. More Senators means a larger stimulus & Obama's first 2 years just going much more smoothly in general (i.e., at least the public option), & perhaps intel butterflies enable the ObL mission to go ahead sometime before the midterms in 2010 instead of 7 months later & give Obama that popularity boost too, but either way, better-than-IRL Democratic legislative performance minimizes losses in 2010, with Dems being filibuster-proof through '13.

Is this in the ballpark?

You're actually pretty much spot on about why 2010 doesn't go as bad, more senators, but take a look at 2004 itself and why Democrats somehow won 49 seats instead of just 45 seats. A couple of key decisions that had an impact on senate races only and gave the Democrats a better playing field are what really caused it.

Ah, my b for misreading. Then I presume either less obstruction of W. judges (& ergo one less front for the GOP to attack Dems on in 2004) or more emboldened opposition against Iraq sees Daschle & 3 of Castor/Mongiardo/Knowles/Bowles win their Senate races in '04; no new non-IRL Dem. Sens. in 2006 (so an L for Ford, Pederson, etc.) or 2008 (so a W for Mitch, etc.), but - as you confirm - at least 63 (& Ig 64 at least for a few months if Specter still switches, even if Brown still wins the special election to replace Kennedy) Dem. Sens. ensures more legislative successes, minimizing seat losses in 2010?

You're getting closer, my two PODs take place before the 2004 elections. Daschle and Mongiardo win, Knowles and Bowles lose.

I'll have kind of a big giveway here, Castor doesn't win or lose, Daschle and Mongiardo win because the map is better.

Bob Graham, in his capacity as Senate Intel Chair for Iraq, opposes the war even more staunchly than he did IRL & instead of retiring thereafter like he did IRL, commits himself to further public congressional investigation of W.'s military affairs; holding the administration to account for its lies more than IRL emboldens Democratic electoral prospects, incl. Graham's?

Bob Graham running again is one of two! Can you guess the other? It's very similar.

John Breaux running again?

Ding Ding Ding! Bob Graham and John Breaux running again. They both seriously considered it and they both would have easily won. WIth two fewer seats to defend, I think Daschle would have held on in South Dakota and Mongiardo would have won in Kentucky, they both only lost by a point. That would've given the Democrats four more seats, made it much easier for them to pass their agenda, and we might have averted the mess we're in today. It's amazing how such seemingly unimportant things can have such big impacts down the road.

Interesting. I assume that Bob Graham, Daniel Mongiardo, John Breaux, and Tom Daschle all would have survived until the 2022 red tsunami, which would give the Democrats a 54-46 majority today. That means that there is a strong likelihood that the BBB bill, the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, and the For the People Act will end up becoming law.