with hindsight do you wish Bush 41 won in 92

[AlanCranston]

because think about it. In the 1994 midterms democrats probably get close to 290 seats in the house and easily get 60 seats in the senate. In 1996, Clinton probably runs again and wins and has a congress to pass whatever he wants.

[PeaceNikki]

1. no

[Morning Dew]

2. Not just no

but FUCK NO ! !

[I Have A Dream]

4. +1! nt

[Ohio Joe]

3. ummm... WTF?

Not just no but FUCK NO. WTF?

[AlanCranston]

5. the so called "Gingrich Revolution" of 1994 was probably

the worst thing to happen to democrats in the modern day. All those a-holes like Gingrich, DeLay, Armey would have been prevented from doing any damage.

[Ohio Joe]

10. You think it would not have been worse if bush had a second term?

A simply mind numbingly stupid idea.

[AndiMer]

29. +1

[Warren DeMontague]

21. Every once in a while the public needs to see exactly what level of flaming fucktards

run the GOP.

[Davis_X_Machina]

6. Clinton would not have gotten the nomination...

...the narrative would be "See, we gave a mostly-unknown, young governor a shot, and look what happened. Time to nominate one of the Great-And-Good."

Hello, President Sam Nunn, or some such.

[AlanCranston]

9. what's so bad about sam nunn?

he isn't that much different from Al Gore. He was a moderate/blue dog while he was senator because he had to be to please his reactionary constituents. Once he became VP he could be as progressive as he wanted.

[dsc]

19. Sam Nunn

is pretty much personally responsible for DADT. He actually fired a person for being gay. Oh, and he opposed every single, solitary piece of gay rights legislation during his tenure in Congress. He is, in short, an anti gay bigot of the highest order.

[Quantess]

7. No.

[JI7]

8. nope, politics just isn't like that , the it needs to get worse so we can get a payoff

later is bs. things just don't work like that.

[PCIntern]

11. "Interesting..."

:popcorn:

[struggle4progress]

12. no

[ProSense]

13. Why would any Democrat wish for a Republican win in hindsight?

In hindsight, I wish Reagan and both Bushes had lost/never became President.

[Hepburn]

14. Hell NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! n/t

[av8rdave]

15. Good God...why would ANYONE have wanted to see another term of that waste of gravity?

[Journeyman]

16. I wish Clinton had swept in solid Democratic majorities in both chambers in '92. . .

I don't look under cow pies for sweet surprises.

[tularetom]

17. No - do you wish we had rescinded the 22nd Amendment in 2003

So that Arnold Schwarzenegger could run for President and been elected in 2008?

[lpbk2713]

18. You're quite mad, aren't you Alan?

I would never concede anything to the evil side.

[Warren DeMontague]

20. I'm still mad about Dewey losing to Truman.

No... seriously- WTF? Clinton was a great president, and the fart of 1994 notwithstanding, the 90s were en masse good for this country.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

22. No. Not even slightly.

[fishwax]

23. no n/t

[WilliamPitt]

24. Wow.

No.

[KeyserSoze87]

25. 16 years of repuke presidents? No thanks.

[Blue-Jay]

26. Hahahahahahaha!

Not even a good effort.

[JoePhilly]

27. Let's use hindsight and prevent Bush 41 and Barbra from having Bush 43.

That would be a far better use of our time machine.

[road2000]

28. Not only no, but hell, no.

And not only hell, no, but Al Gore was not a blue dog.

Old Bush winning in 02 would have paved the way for Baby Bush in 96. Clinton may not have been the nominee, and we'd have had 2000 -- only four years sooner.

[BrklynLiberal]

30. Never

[Webster Green]

31. No thanks!

If my wishes could change the past, none of them would involve a Bush family member having any power at all. I would wish them to never have been born.

[underseasurveyor]

32. Are you nutz?

Obtuse:eyes:

[PufPuf23]

33. Hell no.

Mr. Cranston was my favorite CA pol before age of vote, Jerry Brown (to this day) my favorite.

I would rather have Jerry Brown POTUS than POTUS Obama.

Edit to add: Brown is signatory to my undergrad degree from Cal though started under Reagan and later left the Feds under Reagan for a Cal Masters under Dukmajian (sp).

Regretfully, POTUS Clinton was complicit in a now grassroots social democratic party with neo-liberal leadershop of the Democratic Party.

That said, POTUS Obama is doing better recently and maybe he can be unfettered for People after re-election in 2012.

I have found much to criticize starting when POTUS Obama made neo-liberal and GOP appointments or retentions.

[JDPriestly]

34. No, I don't. Because things don't happen in the sort of simple,

neat way you describe.

Shortly after Clinton came into office, we had a big financial crisis in Asia. Bush would not have been able to deal with it. His thinking was not flexible enough when it came to economic issues. (Bush I was not a brilliant man. Clinton is.)

So, we were better off with Clinton than Bush I, but I think we could have done much better than Clinton.

[AlanCranston]

36. when you said that Bush's thinking was not

flexible enough when it came to economic issues, wouldn't it have caused the democrats to pick up three dozen seats in 1994 to get to a 2/3 majority in the house and pick up enough senate seats to get to a 3/5 majority? Then a democrat would have won in 1996 and we would have been able to pass whatever we wanted. Dan Glickman, Neal Smith, Jack Brooks, Bill Sarpalius, Tom Foley and countless others would still be in office.

[rurallib]

35. only in nightmares.

4 more years of stealing us blind?
ETA - I really wish the SCOTUS would have stayed out of 2000

[Skink]

37. Maybe HW would have got Bin Laden.

[cameozalaznick]

38. Hell no...

For one thing, I can't think of an example of a candidate winning the nomination, losing the election, and then ever running again. At least not in my lifetime. Likely, Clinton would not have run in '96.

[Skink]

40. didn't Nixon Lose one time?

[Motown_Johnny]

39. That would move W back four years, and he would be in his second term now

are you sure that is what you want?

[AtomicKitten]

41. Wayback machine says no.