And just to clarify, he was actually scheduled to be on one of those flights, but overslept and missed it.
That’s a good one. I’ve mentioned in other threads that I think I could swing Florida 2000 through my own ordinary mundane efforts if I were given a one-way Peggy Sue-style time trip there starting early during the election season.
I think your timeline is off there. That insult came because Trump had already revealed himself to be a Birther in 2011 during his exploration of running in 2012. I remember it well; my already low opinion of him dropped further when he announced his Birtherism. In 20-20 hindsight, I realize now he probably didn’t believe it. It was yet another lie for the people likely to support him. Probably 90% of the birther movement was done for the same reason.
Here’s a relatively uncommon POD: What if Frank Wills hadn’t been so diligent during his rounds, and the Watergate break-in hadn’t been discovered?
Despite the removal of the Watergate scandal, I predict Ford, as sitting VP, would still have run against Carter in 1976, and still lost. There were plenty of other problems in America that the current administration would still be blamed for, and in addition, Ford wouldn’t have the incumbency advantage. That by itself has been a factor in many sitting VPs not winning on their first attempt to succeed the president they served under.
Biggest long-term effect of no Watergate? Forever after that, nobody uses “-gate” as a handy suffix to brand a scandal.
The mind boggles. (Excellent response, BTW. 
)
After the battle at Little Big Horn, Sitting Bull and 5,000 Sioux headed across the border to the Canadian prairies. So far, so good. But instead of returning to the US as they did, they stay. They link up with Métis and First Nations in Saskatchewan and join in the resistance of 1885. Together, they make up a force too formidable to subdue by the Canadian military and instead of sending the troops, Prime Minister Macdonald negotiates, and an autonomous Métis/First Nations territory is formed. 95 years later, this territory links up with Cascadia/Ecotopia when it secedes from the US. We all live happily ever after.
You can trace that one back quite a bit further, to the 1999 Division Two play-off final in which City were 2-0 down with 89 minutes played. They levelled the tie in injury time and went on to win on penalties, securing their promotion back to the second tier of English football. Without that they may never have been in a position to secure subsequent investment. But it probably would have gone to a different club instead, so not changing the course of history too much.
I still think about Game 6 of the 1986 NLCS. In the bottom of the 14 inning Billy Hatcher hit a towering solo home run off the left field foul pole, tying the game at 4. I wonder what would have happened if there had been a man on base, giving the Astros a 5-4 victory instead of the eventual 7-6 loss that sent the Mets on to the World Series. The popular opinion is that Mike Scott would have pitched a shutout like in Game 1, or maybe given up just 1 run like in Game 4. But this is baseball, and you just never know.
Sometimes I think the Astros would have ended up wasting a brilliant effort by Scott, losing 1-0 in extra innings with Dave Smith or Charlie Kerfeld talking the loss. On top of that it would probably have been one of those games where the Astros had men on base every other other inning but would end up hitting into double plays, striking out, and hitting pop flies to end the inning, while Scott would have had a no-hitter going. The sort of game where I’d be sitting here describing a counter-factual about how “if only that Glenn Davis or José Cruz fly out that died on the warning track had made it a little bit further.”
On the topic of sports, then Steve Young overthrowing Jerry Rice by mere inches in the season finale of Falcons-49ers arguably is what led to the Cowboys, not 49ers, winning the Super Bowl in the 1995 season.
Similarly, if Tony Romo had not overthrown Miles Austin by mere inches on a 3rd down late in the fourth quarter against the Giants, the Giants most likely don’t even go to the playoffs at all and win the SB in the 2011 season.
This is a counterfactual I think about. I thought the action that could have led to that was the Vikings adapting better to the conditions and not been stubbornly stuck in their northern European ways. But apparently that interpretation is no longer considered accurate by historians, so another would be the counterfactual where the Lombok volcano didn’t erupt and cause a worldwide drop in temperatures.
If they had continued their exploration of North America I do think a possible outcome would be the exposure to the Native Americans to European diseases, but at a point where the European military technology (and population) was not so far in advance of the Mesoamerican civilizations that they could take advantage and take over.
What if Fidel Castro had been a bit better as a baseball player, tried out for the major league, and got in? Moved to the US, stayed here… never got involved in Cuban politics.
I had a deep discussion with a St. Louis Cardinals fan/historian when I asked, “What if the Cardinals hadn’t traded Ernie Broglio for Lou Brock?” We concluded the Cardinals wouldn’t have won in 1964, but still could have won in 1967, and pushed the World Series to seven games in 1968 - but the Cubs would STILL have been a second-division team.
Fidel was feted in New York shortly after the success of the revolution, ate an hot dog, met some swells at a swanky hotel, even met with a group of kids who had been given fake beards to wear for the meeting. That was the missed opportunity: the counterfactual I’d suggest is the US supports Castro, keeps the USSR out, aids democratic movements in Latin America, and the world is spared the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and much more. With the Cold War less antagonistic, the USSR is less paranoid and the planet is spared the arms race, while science is devoted to improving life for everyone.
Just after the War of 1812, somehow the boll weevil gets introduced to the southern United States. King Cotton is strangled in the cradle.
My favorite- the Dogger Bank incident from 1904 (in which a confused Russia fleet sinks UK civilian vessels in the English channel under the bizarre misappropriation that those vessels were Japanese warships) leads to war between Britain (already allied with Japan) and Russia. France (allied with Russia already) joins to take on Britain, and Germany joins the British side - leading to an early World War, an early collapse of the Czarist regime and an unrecognizable 20th century.
Unfortunately I don’t think this could have happened because somehow Marxism gained a complete lock on all revolutionary movements in the 20th century. Indeed Marx himself claimed that “bourgeois” revolutions such as the American and French Revolutions could no longer happen because the capitalists had made common cause with authoritarian dictators. The local peasants in Cuba didn’t care about generalissimo Batista so much as they cared about the local landowner who would call in army troops to massacre nascent labor movements. So sadly, I don’t think a Jeffersonian democratic revolution was ever a possibility.
Along those lines, what if Bill Clinton hadn’t encouraged his friend, Donald, to run for office:
I’m not up to date on the evidence for direct contact. I think small pox was passed by the Spanish at some known point. Interestingly the Vikings would eventually practice small pox inoculation. I don’t know how much disease made a difference in history vs. technology in the Americas, but disease certainly wiped out a lot of original American man power.
I think there’s no real debate (I mean they are historians so there’s probably someone who denies it and has a revisionist version 
) that depopulation by disease was the primary thing that allowed the Europeans to take over. But even after that I don’t think circa 1000AD Europeans would have had the technology and (after the diseases had run their course) population to take over completely the way circa 1500AD Europeans did.
I take your points, but Castro didn’t declare himself a Marxist-Leninist until the Bay of Pigs and he decided he really needed a nuclear shield. My counterfactual is really that the US took the non-alignment movement seriously and encouraged it; it would have undercut the authoritarianism of the USSR and, well, it’s a counterfactual.
Except that if what we wanted was to avoid the Scylla and Charybdis of either Marxist revolution or right-wing dictatorship and somehow find a democratic middle way, we utterly failed. Apparently there simply wasn’t a middle road to walk, any more than existed in Eastern Europe between 1941 and 1945. In the 20th century “revolution” and “Marxist” were seemingly inextricably linked, if only because Marxists were the most practiced and fervent of revolutionaries. The failure of pro-democratic movements to successfully resist left-wing AND right-wing authoritarianism is one of the most distressing features of 20th century political history.
I disagree. The ‘95 team, other than at the head coach position, was when Dallas was at their peak. They had Deion Sanders that year, who was in top form and IMHO had the best shut down corner season of any cornerback in NFL history that year. Charles Haley, who I think was more key to their dynasty than Aikman, Smith, or Irvin, was also in peak form. Larry Allen was on his way to becoming an all pro offensive lineman. And they still had the vast majority of their other key players from the ‘92 and ‘93 seasons. There’s no way San Francisco beats them.