2012 Scenario

[GPORTER]

In 2008, Giuliani wins the republican nomination, he selects Fred Thompson as his running mate. Clinton is nominated by the democrats and she selects Bill Richardson. A portion of the troops come home during the fall campaign and Giuliani paints Clinton as this polarizing figure who would lack the skills to lead a country. On election night, Giuliani prevails narrowly. Nancy Pelosi is shocked when the democrats loose control of the house and the democrats keep the senate by a narrow margin.

With a split congress, Giuliani can work together with the congress better than he could with a full democratic congress. He works together with the congress to bring 75% of the troops home as a result of great progress in Iraq. Giuliani pleases the american people by lowering taxes fifteen to twenty percent lower. Giuliani wins the hearts of the american people by bringing home a vast majority of the troops and lowering taxes while keeping the budget balanced. He presides over a stable economy and overall peace and happiness at home and good foreign relations.

By the time 2012 rolls around, Giuliani announces that he will run for reelection. He offers the running mate position again to Fred Thompson, however Thompson declines due to health concerns and other private information. Thompson wishes Giuliani the best and pledges to stay on as vice president until his term expires in January 2013. Giuliani is not challenged during the primaries and is nominated unamiously at the republican convention. Giuliani honors Thompson for his public service both as a senator and as vice president for the past four years. Thompson delivers a brief farewell speech. Giuliani selects Minnesota Governor, Tim Pawlenty as his running mate. Meanwhile, the democrats nominate former vice president and nominee, Al Gore for the presidency. Gore accepts the nomination gladly and he selects Dick Gephardt of Missouri as his running mate.

With the success of the Giuliani administration, will Giuliani be able to win a second term or will he fall short because of a need for change after twelve years of republican rule? You decide. Discuss with maps.

The tickets are:

Rudy Giuliani/Tim Pawlenty
vs.
Al Gore/Dick Gephardt

[Kaine for Senate '18]

In 2008, Giuliani wins the republican nomination, he selects Fred Thompson as his running mate. Clinton is nominated by the democrats and she selects Bill Richardson. A portion of the troops come home during the fall campaign and Giuliani paints Clinton as this polarizing figure who would lack the skills to lead a country. On election night, Giuliani prevails narrowly. Nancy Pelosi is shocked when the democrats loose control of the house and the democrats keep the senate by a narrow margin.

With a split congress, Giuliani can work together with the congress better than he could with a full democratic congress. He works together with the congress to bring 75% of the troops home as a result of great progress in Iraq. Giuliani pleases the american people by lowering taxes fifteen to twenty percent lower. Giuliani wins the hearts of the american people by bringing home a vast majority of the troops and lowering taxes while keeping the budget balanced. He presides over a stable economy and overall peace and happiness at home and good foreign relations.

By the time 2012 rolls around, Giuliani announces that he will run for reelection. He offers the running mate position again to Fred Thompson, however Thompson declines due to health concerns and other private information. Thompson wishes Giuliani the best and pledges to stay on as vice president until his term expires in January 2013. Giuliani is not challenged during the primaries and is nominated unamiously at the republican convention. Giuliani honors Thompson for his public service both as a senator and as vice president for the past four years. Thompson delivers a brief farewell speech. Giuliani selects Minnesota Governor, Tim Pawlenty as his running mate. Meanwhile, the democrats nominate former vice president and nominee, Al Gore for the presidency. Gore accepts the nomination gladly and he selects Dick Gephardt of Missouri as his running mate.

With the success of the Giuliani administration, will Giuliani be able to win a second term or will he fall short because of a need for change after twelve years of republican rule? You decide. Discuss with maps.

The tickets are:

Rudy Giuliani/Tim Pawlenty
vs.
Al Gore/Dick Gephardt

This will never, ever, happen.  You are just creating a partisan hack of a post.  But, for your benefit, here is a map:

[Lief 🗽]

I agree with benconstine's map, though I might give Giuliani South Dakota.

[gorkay]

Never mind the election, I'm dying to know what the "private information" is that gets Thompson off the ticket.

[auburntiger]

Everything goes in cycles. It is near impossible for one party to win three elections in a row. Of course, the GOP won 5 or 6 consecutive elections around the turn of the century, and then the Dems won 5 consecutive elections in teh 30's and 40's, but those were special cirumstances...Great Depresion, WW2, etc.

The only exception in recent times was Bush in '88.

that said, if history repeats itself, as it ususally does, expect the Dems to win in 2008. If they don't, they will win in 2012.

[gorkay]

Everything goes in cycles. It is near impossible for one party to win three elections in a row. Of course, the GOP won 5 or 6 consecutive elections around the turn of the century, and then the Dems won 5 consecutive elections in teh 30's and 40's, but those were special cirumstances...Great Depresion, WW2, etc.

The only exception in recent times was Bush in '88.

that said, if history repeats itself, as it ususally does, expect the Dems to win in 2008. If they don't, they will win in 2012.

Excellent point. Although I would say that Dukakis' staggering ineptitude in '88 might qualify as "special circumstances."

[Mr. Morden]

Everything goes in cycles. It is near impossible for one party to win three elections in a row. Of course, the GOP won 5 or 6 consecutive elections around the turn of the century, and then the Dems won 5 consecutive elections in teh 30's and 40's, but those were special cirumstances...Great Depresion, WW2, etc.

How is it "nearly impossible"?  The last 7 times a party tried to win three in a row:

1928 GOP wins 3rd consecutive election
1940, 1944, 1948 Dems make it 5 in a row
1960 GOP fails to win 3 in a row, but election is *extremely* close
1968 Dems fail to win 3 in a row, but election is *extremely* close
1976 GOP fails to win 3 in a row, but election is *extremely* close
1988 GOP wins 3rd consecutive election
2000 Dems fail to win 3 in a row, but election is so close it's basically a tie

So in 3 of the last 7 times a party won 2 consecutive elections, they then went on to win a 3rd consecutive election.  And every one of the 4 times they failed, the election came out so close that, with a minor change in circumstances, they would have won.  (In 3 of those cases, the popular vote margin was less than 1%.)  So it doesn't really seem so nearly impossible to me.

[gorkay]

It might have been better to say it's virtually impossible to win 4 in a row, not 3 in a row. But Auburntiger's essential point that the process is cyclical is still valid.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Every time a party has won three in a row, they have not only had an extremely popular incumbent, but a very strong candidate.  The GOP does not have either one of those this time.  Bush is very unpopular, and the GOP frontrunners are all weak.  I think Huckabee and McCain are the two strongest candidates, and neither one of them will get the nomination.  I think it is far more likely that the Democrats will win in 2008.

[Mr. Morden]

Yes, I agree that the Dems are in a very strong position to win in 2008.  Just saying that there's no great historical barrier that the GOP would have to overcome to win a 3rd consecutive election.  They're in a bad position now because of the particular circumstances they face in 2007/8, not because of any great overriding disadvantages inherent  to being in power for 8 years.

[gorkay]

Yes, I agree that the Dems are in a very strong position to win in 2008.  Just saying that there's no great historical barrier that the GOP would have to overcome to win a 3rd consecutive election.  They're in a bad position now because of the particular circumstances they face in 2007/8, not because of any great overriding disadvantages inherent  to being in power for 8 years.

I think you're right in a way and wrong in a way. Elections are always decided by the circumstances that prevail at the specific time they're held, yes. But it also always seems that when one party is in power for eight years or more, circumstances unfavorable to them arise. Why this should be so is a subject you could write a long treatise about, but it always seems to happen.

[pbrower2a]

Yes, I agree that the Dems are in a very strong position to win in 2008.  Just saying that there's no great historical barrier that the GOP would have to overcome to win a 3rd consecutive election.  They're in a bad position now because of the particular circumstances they face in 2007/8, not because of any great overriding disadvantages inherent  to being in power for 8 years.

I think you're right in a way and wrong in a way. Elections are always decided by the circumstances that prevail at the specific time they're held, yes. But it also always seems that when one party is in power for eight years or more, circumstances unfavorable to them arise. Why this should be so is a subject you could write a long treatise about, but it always seems to happen.

What goes wrong?

1. Within eight years, a presidential agenda goes stale. Success implies that the President has achieved much of what he wanted to do (if he achieved nothing he probably didn't get re-elected) and has little new to offer. So it is with his Party. The only President who had no such problem was FDR, who found that one gigantic agenda (the Axis menace) trivialized the one that he had just faced (the Great Depression). Abraham Lincoln might have been in a similar position had he not been assassinated.

2. Presidential coattails bring along politicians in the House and Senate who got away with hidden flaws. Some are empty suits; some are outright crooks. Such figures find that their initial support disappears.

3. The opposition gets time to reflect, to develop an agenda, and to promote young and dynamic politicians -- or at least those who seem imaginative and dynamic.  Such candidates are able to defeat the empty suits and outright crooks.

4. All administrations choose to do the popular, and they often neglect menaces that build while they govern. A prime example is George W. Bush, who failed to recognize that his anti-labor philosophy and his loose monetary policy would create economic imbalances that would lead to a financial crisis because of an odd combination of speculation and underinvestment.  Much the same happened under Calvin Coolidge. To be sure, Coolidge and Dubya are two of the weakest Presidents in American history, but both reflected their times. The financial crisis of course overwhelmed Herbert Hoover, the President who entered office with the highest expectations that any incoming President ever had. Obama? Is he the new FDR or the new Herbert Hoover?     

5. The successor -- often the VP -- is often selected for qualities not related to political leadership -- the ability to "deliver" a key state in an election, the ability to partially-neuter a temporary rival,  or to find someone whose personal loyalty trumps all. The last two VP's to succeed Presidents by being elected at the end of their predecessors' terms were Martin Van Buren (a disaster)  and George H. W. Bush.   

It's just as well that we have a veritable Torno as characterized in monarchical Spain about a hundred years ago; the alternative is the dominance of one party. One-Party systems have proved among the nastiest of political orders -- systems in which the entrenched leadership arranges things so that opposition does not exist or is rendered impotent.  I see the Bush Administration and I see Dubya as a frontman for Karl Rove, who tried to establish himself as a dictator wielding executive, legislative, and even judicial power outside of the normal constraints associated with elected officials, powerful figures (typically judges) appointed subject to ratification by elected officials, and employees of the government who can be fired for misconduct or insubordination. The formality of a two-Party system would exist, but the opposition would be rendered unable to accomplish anything. Government would well serve financial backers, keep promising "cultural values" to people who could be manipulated and did not care about getting tangible goodies, and utterly neglect those who voted for the impotent opposition.

Political systems have existed in which the dominant Party is a de facto branch of government.   The legislature becomes a rubber stamp, the judiciary is culled into a clique of "hanging judges" like Roland Freisler, Andrei Vishinsky, and Awad Hamed al-Bandar. The Party Boss may become the formal Chief executive (Hitler, Saddam) but such is not necessary; Stalin wielded absolute power as General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the President becoming a puppet of the Party Boss. To be sure, our political system took only baby steps in that direction, and not enough that that tendency became irreversible.

Would a different set of Republican leaders -- let us say with John McCain winning the Republican primaries of 2000, telling Karl Rove to get lost and thus showing character, and then defeating Al Gore in November -- have brought different results? Of course! But by 2006 the McCain Administration, had it been modestly successful, would have been drawing water from a dry well, as normally happens during a President's second term. The Democrats would be back in 2009, but perhaps with a very different set of circumstances.   

[Psychic Octopus]

LOL, how did you find this?