It's more of an experimental concept, right now. We won't know if it'll be accepted by an audience until we get some input. Honestly, I do like the concept.
Actually, that is "feasible with the united states", as it has happened before. In the late 1960's, Lyndon B. Johnson was the president of the united states, and he had brought the U.S. into the Vietnam war. Before January 30th, 1968, Lyndon B. Johnson's approval rating was pretty high, but after the Tet Offensive (which began on January 30th, 1968, according to history.com and wikipedia.org), his approval rating plummeted to the ground as the U.S. citizens saw the terrors of war, and seeing U.S. troops being defeated in the battle. How they saw this was a news station went out into the field to cover the war (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Cronkite#Vietnam_War). In the end, we ended up losing the Vietnam war, and with it, Lyndon B Johnsons approval rating plummeted to the ground. During the entirety of the war, counter-culture groups began appearing all across America (i.e. hippies, activists, radical Anti-America groups, women's rights, the "British Invasion"(Beatles, Rolling Stones, etc.)), all of which had a negative view of the war.
Imagine if we had won the Vietnam war? Imagine if there was no news station report for it? Would Lyndon B Johnson be re-elected the following election after is term ended? Most likely.
Another example of how this is feasible is an example I--hopefully--don't have to explain a whole lot. The American Civil War of 1861-1865. The way of present-day America was threatened by the Confederacy during that time. If the Confederacy had won over more states, the view of the U.S. citizens at the time may have been "I say, this 'United States' is frankly, not that United! The U.S. is weak, and we shall submit to the better power".
tl;dr Changing the outcome of major events can cause a different future to come up. Even if the event is "small", it can cause a domino effect of other different outcomes.
Click to expand...