Just How Well Would Colin Powell Do Against Bill Clinton in 1996?

[Paul V McNutt]

Tsongas is a pro choice liberal. He would further alienate the social conservative wing of the Republican Partu. Powell needs a conservative but I disagree with Wendell's choice. Bob Dornan is too controversial.

[vultan]

Re Stolengood: If Powell is the Republican nominee, he's going to need a strong conservative as his running mate. Tsongas is a no-go as a VP pick (though perhaps he may endorse Powell over Clinton under these circumstances).

Re TNF: Hmm, it's been suggested that Perot, Nader, and (if he were to run third party) Pat Buchanan could all do better than historically should Powell be the '96 Republican nominee. Perhaps Perot gets 10%-12% of the vote, Buchanan gets 3%-5% of the vote, and Nader 1%-2%?

Re Wendell: Interesting electoral map, though I also like the one that Tony made for a DBWI thread on this topic recently. (Full credit to Tony for making the map.)

[Stolengood]

Originally Posted by vultan

Re Stolengood: If Powell is the Republican nominee, he's going to need a strong conservative as his running mate.

Hmmmm... perhaps Buchanan or Forbes, then?

[TNF]

Originally Posted by Paul V McNutt

Tsongas is a pro choice liberal. He would further alienate the social conservative wing of the Republican Partu. Powell needs a conservative but I disagree with Wendell's choice. Bob Dornan is too controversial.

Tsongas is hardly a liberal. He was to the right of Bill Clinton, and that's what cost him the nomination in '92. Clinton went after Tsongas' proto-Ryan plans for Social Security, Medicare, etc. Tsongas was a Democrat, but not much of a liberal. Basically, had Tsongas become President, you'd really see some internal revolt within the Democratic Party. Clinton had the ability to talk to the party's liberal wing and make himself 'their guy'. Tsongas wouldn't have that ability, because he's an electable version of Bob Rubin.

So I can definitely see Tsongas going third party with Powell, though I doubt that would be Powell's VP nominee if he did go third party or independent. Tsongas doesn't line up with Powell in a geographic sense. Powell would need a midwesterner, stat. If Powell runs as a Republican, that means John Engler, or more likely, IMO, George Voinovich. Powell-Voinovich would be a great ticket for the GOP to run in the 1990s because it's got (A) a war hero and (B) a popular midwestern Governor of a swing state that can work with the Democrats should they control the Senate at some point to get things done.

The real problem for Powell would be winning the nomination. I think he could do it, he just has to convince the party leadership that he wouldn't be Poppy Bush. He's certainly not Reagan, and he's certainly not Dole, who was more conservative than Reagan (at least if you go by the latter's voting record in Congress). Powell already proved himself to the public, but he'd need to prove himself to the GOP. Especially if Newt Gingrich is Speaker of the House, he's going to have some fights on his hands if the conservative wing of the party doesn't fall in line (which it probably would, because Republicans tend to be better at biting their tongues and doing whatever their President wants regardless of their own bad feelings about it)

If Powell wins, though, I think that he probably wouldn't have control of Congress for too long. It all just depends. Powell will have Congress at least until 1998; best case scenario is that he has it until 2002, worst is of course 1998. The economy was doing just fine in 1998, so barring some massive scandals coming out of the Republican leadership in Congress, I think the GOP holds both chambers with average size losses in 1998. The 2000 Presidential Election between Gore and Powell would be pretty boring; Powell would have the good economy to point to, while Gore would have...well, not much, really. An incumbent POTUS running in the late 1990s economy would have been basically impossible to dethrone.

But where things get interesting is in the second Powell administration. I don't see 9/11 happening with Powell in office, so the economy and the recession are going to take front-and-center going into the early 2000s. The Democrats win control of the Senate (if not the House as well) in 2002, and now Powell is on the defensive with Speaker Gephardt. Stimulus package probably goes through, economy rebounds a bit, but not anywhere near the level it needs to for Vice President Voinovich to defeat Senator Hillary Clinton in 2004. Clinton wins a close victory over Voinovich, and the Democrats have control of both chambers of Congress at that point.

What happens then is anyone's guess. My bet is that without the additional military spending keeping the economy afloat, the 2008 crash happens a lot sooner. Could happen during Powell's tenure, could happen under Clinton. Either way, I think we'd see some pretty big butterflies in foreign relations and the domestic economy. The 'Third Way' would be less discredited within the Democratic Party, for one. Another might be that the Republicans still have a significant moderate wing. The Reform Party would probably do better and might even still be around.

But one thing's for certain, Vice President Edwards is going to have a hell of a time trying to fend off a challenge from former Governor Romney in the 2012 Presidential election...

[Peelitebkearns]

I think Powell is the only GOP candidate who has a chance at beating Clinton in 1996 and on paper, I think he could do it. However, he needs to pick a social conservative and hold the republicans together, as others have said.

Assuming all goes well for Powell, then he could well win-I'd put his chances at 50 50. If a scandle blows up in Clinton's face however, I think Powell would win.

If Powell is elected in 96, he'd win again in 2000, possibly with a simelar margin to Reagan's 1984 victory.

I wonder, if Clinton loses to Powell in 1996 in a close race, could he pull a Cleveland? He'd be fairly popular still I think and though he'd sit out 2000 because of Powell's popularity, I could well see him coming back to give it another go in 2004.

[Corbell Mark IV]

[QUOTE=Paul V McNutt;6210157]

Originally Posted by Corbell Mark IV

Pretty much zero. You think Buchanan wants to help Clinton win?[/QUO

He ran as a third party candidate in 2000 and risked helping Gire win.

The Reform Party was already up and running.

Buchanan, by being the nominee was in a position to make sure it didn't play the spoiler role again.

[Stolengood]

Originally Posted by TNF

Vice President Edwards is going to have a hell of a time trying to fend off a challenge from former Governor Romney in the 2012 Presidential election...

What makes you think Clinton would want Edwards for VP? No, she'd probably pick someone boring, like Kerry...

Originally Posted by Peelitebkearns

I wonder, if Clinton loses to Powell in 1996 in a close race, could he pull a Cleveland? He'd be fairly popular still I think and though he'd sit out 2000 because of Powell's popularity, I could well see him coming back to give it another go in 2004.

...now, that's interesting.

[Paul V McNutt]

Powell would need conservative someone more conservative than Tsongas. I disagree with Wendall. Dornan would have been too controversial.

[terrellk]

No way Powell is picking Voinovich for VP, especially if he needs someone to shore up his conservative credentials. Voinovich was/is popular in Ohio, but to much of the Republican base it would look like Powell was doubling down on his moderate stances. It's been said that he'll need someone who is A) a proven conservative, B) going to bring a regional diversity to the ticket, and C) charismatic and, therefore, a better campaigner than Powell himself.

So I submit he could choose Fred Thompson. He would meet all three criteria and brings a dash of populism to the ticket as well. I know Fred's only been in the senate for two years before this, but General Powell doesn't need, as was the case with GWB, someone to add gravitas to the ticket. Furthermore, Thomspon is going to bring the fight to Clinton/Gore's home turf and make the south competitive. It will also handicap the third party efforts of Buchanan (and maybe even Perot) so it would be an all around win, I think.

Even more interesting would be if the entire election came down to Tennessee. Could be neat to see if Gore had lost his connection with his home state yet or if he could pull one out over Powell/Thompson.

[vultan]

Originally Posted by terrellk

No way Powell is picking Voinovich for VP, especially if he needs someone to shore up his conservative credentials. Voinovich was/is popular in Ohio, but to much of the Republican base it would look like Powell was doubling down on his moderate stances. It's been said that he'll need someone who is A) a proven conservative, B) going to bring a regional diversity to the ticket, and C) charismatic and, therefore, a better campaigner than Powell himself.

So I submit he could choose Fred Thompson. He would meet all three criteria and brings a dash of populism to the ticket as well. I know Fred's only been in the senate for two years before this, but General Powell doesn't need, as was the case with GWB, someone to add gravitas to the ticket. Furthermore, Thomspon is going to bring the fight to Clinton/Gore's home turf and make the south competitive. It will also handicap the third party efforts of Buchanan (and maybe even Perot) so it would be an all around win, I think.

Even more interesting would be if the entire election came down to Tennessee. Could be neat to see if Gore had lost his connection with his home state yet or if he could pull one out over Powell/Thompson.

You know, I was thinking of Fred Thompson as well. The fact that he'd only been in the Senate since 1994 would be mitigated by the fact that he was a national figure before since before then.

[Stolengood]

But when Thompson actually campaigned for the presidency OTL, he was incredibly lackluster and uninspiring.

Younger Thompson as VP might work, but if he acts the way older Thompson did OTL, he'll make the Powell candidacy go over as well as a lead balloon.

[The Kiat]

Clinton was fairly popular. I'm not sure any (R) candidate could convince enough of the voters to jump ship. Powell had sense enough to never run for the office of President. You have to either be mad or power-hungry to want that job.

Originally Posted by Plumber

So Clinton would have a fight on his hands. I don't see Powell as a very good campaigner, so it's a tossup.

Yup, because elections have absolutely nothing to do with the will of the people. It's all about strategy. Actually that attitude is why I'm in favor of abolishing the electorial college. Make the candidates work for their votes and stop taking it for granted.

[Stolengood]

Would Jerry Brown attempt to run in 2000, should Powell win in '96? If nothing else, the '96 loss would certainly dissuade party insiders from backing a losing VP for President (shades of Walter Mondale in '84, after all...).

[eaglesfan101]

Originally Posted by Stolengood

Would Jerry Brown attempt to run in 2000, should Powell win in '96? If nothing else, the '96 loss would certainly dissuade party insiders from backing a losing VP for President (shades of Walter Mondale in '84, after all...).

Withour Gore/Clinton, I see the nomination going to either Bill Bradley or John Kerry.

[Stolengood]

Originally Posted by eaglesfan101

Withour Gore/Clinton, I see the nomination going to either Bill Bradley or John Kerry.

Hmmmm... both of them rather boring, though. They're probably the losing horses, in that situation.

I'm still intrigued by the "Clinton seeks nonconsecutive second term in 2004" idea, though...

[Sicarius]

Pro-choice black Republican running against popular charismatic incumbent southern Democrat in a good economy, he would do awful.

[Peelitebkearns]

Originally Posted by Stolengood

Hmmmm... both of them rather boring, though. They're probably the losing horses, in that situation.

I'm still intrigued by the "Clinton seeks nonconsecutive second term in 2004" idea, though...

Unless their's another pod contributing to his 96 loss-such as a major sex scandle making him unpopular, I'd actually be surprised if Clinton didn't at least consider becoming "the comeback kid" a second time by trying for the nomination again. He'd be young-and able to run, which would probably trigger speculation about 2000. He'd encourage that speculation, but if Powell is popular he'd give it a miss. As Powell will be term-limited in 2004, I can't see any reason (besides Hillary wanting to give it a go, perhaps) why he wouldn't run-and get the nomination.

[Corbell Mark IV]

Originally Posted by Sicarius

Pro-choice black Republican running against popular charismatic incumbent southern Democrat in a good economy, he would do awful.

Polls said otherwise.

[Corbell Mark IV]

Originally Posted by Peelitebkearns

Unless their's another pod contributing to his 96 loss-such as a major sex scandle making him unpopular, I'd actually be surprised if Clinton didn't at least consider becoming "the comeback kid" a second time by trying for the nomination again. He'd be young-and able to run, which would probably trigger speculation about 2000. He'd encourage that speculation, but if Powell is popular he'd give it a miss. As Powell will be term-limited in 2004, I can't see any reason (besides Hillary wanting to give it a go, perhaps) why he wouldn't run-and get the nomination.

If Hillary had as per OTL, spent the time inbetween in the Senate, she could actually be a serious contender for VP in TTL.

Clinton/Clinton for President?

[Plumber]

Originally Posted by Corbell Mark IV

If Hillary had as per OTL, spent the time inbetween in the Senate, she could actually be a serious contender for VP in TTL.

Clinton/Clinton for President?

That's illegal.

Clinton won't pull a Cleveland anyways. Hillary will have none of it.