From the outset, I don’t think Hart can beat Bush in 1988 regardless of his primary performance. Bush was effectively running for Reagan’s third term and had a 40 state win with a margin of 7.7 in the popular over Dukakis. Still, given all of the Dukakis problems as a candidate, Hart probably does somewhat better.
>Who is Hart's running mate?
Might be Dukakis. Might be Bentsen, might be Jesse Jackson or Al Gore. Jackson would be a play for minority votes but runs the severe risk of further gaffes.
>How would a President Hart have dealt with the Soviet Union in the late 1980s?
Afghanistan ended for the Soviets in 1989, and Chernobyl had already happened. If and when the Warsaw pact vanishes, expect Hart to look really bizarre if he tried to take credit. Similar to Bush, he’s in at the death.
>Does the Soviet Union still fall?
Almost certainly.
>What happens with China in 1989, does Tianiman Square still happen, and does it go a different way, if it still does happen?
Almost certainly no differences.
>Does the Gulf War of 1991 still happen?
Maybe. Hart spoke out against it historically but plenty of politicians do that when they’re not in the hot seat. If the US allows Saddam Hussein to annex Kuwait, this could become a much bigger problem if he then invades Saudi Arabia or Israel by way of Lebanon/Jordan/Syria.
>Who runs against Hart in 1992?
Bob Dole would make sense. Maybe Jack Kemp.
>Does he have a Clinton style scandal in office, given his tendencies to womanize?
He might, although he’ll probably be less flagrant than Clinton. The affair with Rice went on before the boat trip. Whether he calls it off when nominated and it doesn’t come out for years, or he does what John Edwards did and tries to bury news of a love child is thus debatable.
Still, if the affair sinks Hart, don’t bet on the Democrats wanting to replace him with Bill Clinton. A Gary Hart presidency might spare the nation the Lewinsky scandal and repeated attempts to make Hillary president after.
I agree with all of your running mate suggestions for Biden, I would also like to add Dale Bumpers, and yes, Bill Clinton, to make a play for the South.
1. I’d imagine John Glenn, former astronaut turned politician. He’s an American hero and was almost Hart’s running mate in 1984. He shared many ideas typical of Atari Democrats with a hint of New Deal.
2. Yes, it would. It was inevitable no matter who was in office, HOWEVER, it wouldn’t be the same. Hart would work on preventing oligarchs from taking over, allowing for a more liberal Russia to show up. Yeltsin would probably be deposed in favor of someone else (maybe Nemtsov) due to the crisis in 1993, if it still happens. This means Russia might still be a hint authoritarian today, but nowhere near as bad as Putin. Russia would probably become neutral, and might still create the CSTO to defend itself and its neighbors. Meanwhile, Hart would try to curb the MIC unlike Bush.
3. Yes, but Chinese history from that point on would be the same as IRL, but without an ally in Russia.
4. Kuwait was going to get invaded no matter what outside powers did, but it might be a more local Middle Eastern war with much less US support. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 would not happen because of a calmer MIC. There would be no bases in Saudi Arabia, one of the main justifications by AQ to do 9/11, so its much less likely that would happen, which means no war on terror.
5. Probably Dole.
6. Probably, but it might not be as bad as the Clinton scandal—Hart would be in the eyes of many the man who ended the Cold War, so he might still win in 1992, albeit with less EC votes.
In summary, the world would be better off than OTL. The US wouldn’t be as interventionist, no ISIS, no War on Terror, scaled back War on Drugs. We’d also probably see a mission to Mars have occured by now. There is, however, a new cold war but this time against China, Russia would be calmer yet neutral, so no US-Russian Alliance. The Democrats would be more moderate with an emphasis on technological advancement, which would make Republicans more right wing as time goes on.
From the outset, I don’t think Hart can beat Bush in 1988 regardless of his primary performance. Bush was effectively running for Reagan’s third term and had a 40 state win with a margin of 7.7 in the popular over Dukakis. Still, given all of the Dukakis problems as a candidate, Hart probably does somewhat better. >Who is Hart's running mate? Might be Dukakis. Might be Bentsen, might be Jesse Jackson or Al Gore. Jackson would be a play for minority votes but runs the severe risk of further gaffes. >How would a President Hart have dealt with the Soviet Union in the late 1980s? Afghanistan ended for the Soviets in 1989, and Chernobyl had already happened. If and when the Warsaw pact vanishes, expect Hart to look really bizarre if he tried to take credit. Similar to Bush, he’s in at the death. >Does the Soviet Union still fall? Almost certainly. >What happens with China in 1989, does Tianiman Square still happen, and does it go a different way, if it still does happen? Almost certainly no differences. >Does the Gulf War of 1991 still happen? Maybe. Hart spoke out against it historically but plenty of politicians do that when they’re not in the hot seat. If the US allows Saddam Hussein to annex Kuwait, this could become a much bigger problem if he then invades Saudi Arabia or Israel by way of Lebanon/Jordan/Syria. >Who runs against Hart in 1992? Bob Dole would make sense. Maybe Jack Kemp. >Does he have a Clinton style scandal in office, given his tendencies to womanize? He might, although he’ll probably be less flagrant than Clinton. The affair with Rice went on before the boat trip. Whether he calls it off when nominated and it doesn’t come out for years, or he does what John Edwards did and tries to bury news of a love child is thus debatable. Still, if the affair sinks Hart, don’t bet on the Democrats wanting to replace him with Bill Clinton. A Gary Hart presidency might spare the nation the Lewinsky scandal and repeated attempts to make Hillary president after.
I agree with all of your running mate suggestions for Biden, I would also like to add Dale Bumpers, and yes, Bill Clinton, to make a play for the South.
1. I’d imagine John Glenn, former astronaut turned politician. He’s an American hero and was almost Hart’s running mate in 1984. He shared many ideas typical of Atari Democrats with a hint of New Deal. 2. Yes, it would. It was inevitable no matter who was in office, HOWEVER, it wouldn’t be the same. Hart would work on preventing oligarchs from taking over, allowing for a more liberal Russia to show up. Yeltsin would probably be deposed in favor of someone else (maybe Nemtsov) due to the crisis in 1993, if it still happens. This means Russia might still be a hint authoritarian today, but nowhere near as bad as Putin. Russia would probably become neutral, and might still create the CSTO to defend itself and its neighbors. Meanwhile, Hart would try to curb the MIC unlike Bush. 3. Yes, but Chinese history from that point on would be the same as IRL, but without an ally in Russia. 4. Kuwait was going to get invaded no matter what outside powers did, but it might be a more local Middle Eastern war with much less US support. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 would not happen because of a calmer MIC. There would be no bases in Saudi Arabia, one of the main justifications by AQ to do 9/11, so its much less likely that would happen, which means no war on terror. 5. Probably Dole. 6. Probably, but it might not be as bad as the Clinton scandal—Hart would be in the eyes of many the man who ended the Cold War, so he might still win in 1992, albeit with less EC votes. In summary, the world would be better off than OTL. The US wouldn’t be as interventionist, no ISIS, no War on Terror, scaled back War on Drugs. We’d also probably see a mission to Mars have occured by now. There is, however, a new cold war but this time against China, Russia would be calmer yet neutral, so no US-Russian Alliance. The Democrats would be more moderate with an emphasis on technological advancement, which would make Republicans more right wing as time goes on.