The first PoD in my scenrio is the earlier War on Terror- instead of 9/11 the 1993 WTC bombing succeeds and Clinton invades Sudan (which hosted the AQ at the time), while intevening more in Somalia and Rwanda.
Dur to the Rally around the Flag effect, there is no Republican revolution in 1994. Also, let's say the fate of two Bush brothers is swapped- so Texas goes for Ruchards and Florida for Jeb.
Clinton, while busy conducting wars in Africa, doesn't have an affair with Monica and so there is no scandal. In 1996, Republicans still nominate Dole but the later pick McCain as his VP. The Republicans ofc lose, but in 2000 they nominate McCain instead of Bush. In 2000, in a very narrow election, Gore, who without Lewinsky scandal picked another VP (let's say Gephardt), wins.
While he doesn't invade Iraq or Afghanistan, he is still a liberal internationalist. And his British colleague, Tony Blair is also so. Wothout Iraq, Blair decides to realize his plan to invade Zimbabwe https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/27/tony-blair-military-intervention-zimbabwe-claim using Mugabe's land reform, human rights violation, and expulsion of whites as casus belli.
That war, without imminent shock of IRL 9/11, is even less popular than IRL Iraq. In 2005, Blair is voted out of office (let's say Clarke is the conservative leader who makes a coalition with libdems) and in 2004 Gore looses badly.
So, my question is following: Would the outrage against Gore-Blair war in Zimbabwe be enough to draft Powell (who didn't want the office of president) or the republicans would end up as just nominating Jeb Bush who would pick a black guy for VP (Cain? Keyes?). Which is more plausible?
Dur to the Rally around the Flag effect, there is no Republican revolution in 1994. Also, let's say the fate of two Bush brothers is swapped- so Texas goes for Ruchards and Florida for Jeb.
Clinton, while busy conducting wars in Africa, doesn't have an affair with Monica and so there is no scandal. In 1996, Republicans still nominate Dole but the later pick McCain as his VP. The Republicans ofc lose, but in 2000 they nominate McCain instead of Bush. In 2000, in a very narrow election, Gore, who without Lewinsky scandal picked another VP (let's say Gephardt), wins.
While he doesn't invade Iraq or Afghanistan, he is still a liberal internationalist. And his British colleague, Tony Blair is also so. Wothout Iraq, Blair decides to realize his plan to invade Zimbabwe https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/27/tony-blair-military-intervention-zimbabwe-claim using Mugabe's land reform, human rights violation, and expulsion of whites as casus belli.
That war, without imminent shock of IRL 9/11, is even less popular than IRL Iraq. In 2005, Blair is voted out of office (let's say Clarke is the conservative leader who makes a coalition with libdems) and in 2004 Gore looses badly.
So, my question is following: Would the outrage against Gore-Blair war in Zimbabwe be enough to draft Powell (who didn't want the office of president) or the republicans would end up as just nominating Jeb Bush who would pick a black guy for VP (Cain? Keyes?). Which is more plausible?