George H Bush wins 1992, who do the 2 parties nominate in 1996?

RousseauX

Donor
Bush was expected to win the 1992 election handily after the Gulf War sent his approvals skyrocketing. But the economy and being portrayed (truthfully or not) as being "out of touch" meant ultimately lost to Bill Clinton.

But what if the economy did better and Bush had a better campaign staff who got him to avoid some of his worst gaffes (the supermarket scanner, that awful debate with Clinton). He squeaks by with a narrow victory.

If Bush won, who would be the nominees in 1996? Logically Bush's VP Dan Quayle should be the GOP nom but he was kinda a joke so maybe he "chooses not to run" and leaves the field open? In Otl 1996 the GOP didn't seriously try to challenge Clinton for the presidency and instead spent effort on preserving congressional majority, Bob dole was just kind of lamb led to the slaughter. Who would they run if they were in a "serious" election? What about the Democrats?
 

President_Gore

A second HW term would very likely see Quayle beset by many gaffes, as he was during the first term. Even if he ran, his gaffe-prone nature would destroy him in the primaries and sully his already poor legacy as Vice President.
 

Sabin

Quayle couldn’t run in 1996 anyway because of phlebitis.

I was too young. General consensus seems to be that it’s Bob Dole for the GOP plus an insurgent Pat Buchanan. Then everybody and their mother runs on the Democratic side. It’s easy to turn it into a Mario Cuomo wank or an Ann Richards wank. It seems like there are some comparisons to 2016, maybe there’s a wild card on the Democratic side.
 

Curtain Jerker

For the GOP, along with the people mentioned, what about Jack Kemp? In a Bush wins in 1992 you butterfly away the GOP romp in 1994 so that generation of House leaders (Newt, Dick Armey, Tom DeLay) all stay fairly obscure to the average American so they're probably out but Kemp is more famous than those guys in such a scenario. I can see Peter Wilson making some noise ITTL too - he did run OTL in 1996 for a minute.

For the Democrats: Coming off four straight presidential losses the finger-pointing will be something fierce. If the 1996 election is razor-thin Clinton might run again but I wouldn't put any real money on it. Maybe Bob Kerrey gives it a go? He'll have the questions about the Thanh Phong raid ITTL that he faced OTL though - and you better believe that will come out in a Presidential campaign. The party would probably stay away from Southern moderates given Clinton's failure so guys like Bill Nelson are probably out. Evan Bayh? Henry Cisneros? Not a ton of depth here as the party has gotten their teeth kicked in for two decades at this point.
 

KingSweden24

Curtain Jerker said:
For the GOP, along with the people mentioned, what about Jack Kemp? In a Bush wins in 1992 you butterfly away the GOP romp in 1994 so that generation of House leaders (Newt, Dick Armey, Tom DeLay) all stay fairly obscure to the average American so they're probably out but Kemp is more famous than those guys in such a scenario. I can see Peter Wilson making some noise ITTL too - he did run OTL in 1996 for a minute.

For the Democrats: Coming off four straight presidential losses the finger-pointing will be something fierce. If the 1996 election is razor-thin Clinton might run again but I wouldn't put any real money on it. Maybe Bob Kerrey gives it a go? He'll have the questions about the Thanh Phong raid ITTL that he faced OTL though - and you better believe that will come out in a Presidential campaign. The party would probably stay away from Southern moderates given Clinton's failure so guys like Bill Nelson are probably out. Evan Bayh? Henry Cisneros? Not a ton of depth here as the party has gotten their teeth kicked in for two decades at this point.
Click to expand...
Kemp would be an option. It could depend too on how involved Bush wants to get in influencing a successor; Reagan was pretty clearly in his camp in 88 after all.

Bayh and Cisneros would both be interesting options on their own merits, and of course Richards/Cuomo are standard options (the former moreso than Hamlet on the Hudson). I’d also throw in a wild card like Bob Graham despite being southern (Florida being “southern”), or perhaps Feinstein after she’s consolidated her position in California a bit more back when she was seen as a more substantive moderate-liberal champion rather than a fossil
 

Curtain Jerker

KingSweden24 said:
Kemp would be an option. It could depend too on how involved Bush wants to get in influencing a successor; Reagan was pretty clearly in his camp in 88 after all.

Bayh and Cisneros would both be interesting options on their own merits, and of course Richards/Cuomo are standard options (the former moreso than Hamlet on the Hudson). I’d also throw in a wild card like Bob Graham despite being southern (Florida being “southern”), or perhaps Feinstein after she’s consolidated her position in California a bit more back when she was seen as a more substantive moderate-liberal champion rather than a fossil
Click to expand...
Richards and Cuomo are good calls - they're in half the timelines set in this era for a reason.

I think the backlash to a losing Southern moderate precludes Graham from surviving a primary, especially because I get the feeling the party lurches more to the left as Bush cuts taxes and reforms welfare domestically. Just a hunch tho.
 

KingSweden24

Curtain Jerker said:
Richards and Cuomo are good calls - they're in half the timelines set in this era for a reason.

I think the backlash to a losing Southern moderate precludes Graham from surviving a primary, especially because I get the feeling the party lurches more to the left as Bush cuts taxes and reforms welfare domestically. Just a hunch tho.
Click to expand...
Bayh might actually be perfectly set up if NAFTA happens on Bush’s watch
 

Amadeus

Quayle most likely gets the GOP nomination. As for the Democrats, Mario Cuomo (if he is re-elected in New York), Bill Bradley, and John Kerry are all potential contenders.
 
Electric Monk

Electric Monk

John McCain. Considered it IOTL. Vastly more formidable with earned media than anyone else. Basically designed in a lab to win New Hampshire. Quayle + Dole + whoever can fracture Iowa enough McCain could sneak through second probably.

The only obvious additional Dem candidate I’d add is Jerry Brown who could run on “I told you so, plus I appeal to Perot voters so…” but really he’s so flighty make your own choice on whether or not he’d enter.
 

Layard

What about Dick Gephardt or Al Gore in 1996? Both skipped 1992 (Gore for personal reasons, Gephardt almost ran but ultimately passed perhaps as running while serving as Majority Leader was too much). Gephardt would be a more prominent anti-NAFTA candidate than Bayh.

Would be interesting if Jesse Jackson runs again as he floated the possibility of running against Clinton in 1996. But very unlikely to win the nomination.
 

Montgomerie Ward

Layard said:
What about Dick Gephardt or Al Gore in 1996? Both skipped 1992 (Gore for personal reasons, Gephardt almost ran but ultimately passed perhaps as running while serving as Majority Leader was too much). Gephardt would be a more prominent anti-NAFTA candidate than Bayh.
Click to expand...
Gephardt definitely runs. He only didn't run in 2000 because Gore was seen as the heir apparent. For Gore, you would need to keep him off the Democratic ticket in 1992. This keeps him from being tainted by association with Clinton.

Maybe Jay Rockefeller decides to retire from the Senate and go all in on a presidential bid?
 

Layard

Would Gore necessarily be tainted by association? I don't think losing running mates are necessarily tainted, or if they are, it's usually because of their own mishaps during the campaign e.g. Palin, Quayle. I don't think Gore had a bad campaign in 1992, although I agree that Gephardt would probably be the stronger candidate, as he was in 1988.
 
Historyman 14

Historyman 14

No Republican Revolution, the GOP might become a more moderate center-right liberal conservative party rather than the one we have now, while the Democrats would end up a centrist/center-left socially liberal party with a significant moderate faction.

You might actually still have Bill Clinton as a sort of 'Nixon' figure. He still be a popular, charismatic politician and former Governor. (Much like Nixon.) 96 could be his comeback year for himself, and for the Democrats.

Maybe even a Clinton run for 2000 if you went that way.
 
Aisha Clan-Clan

Aisha Clan-Clan

Dole, I guess. Dole wins thanks to the 90s economy.

Dem side of things? Not clinton or gore. I suspect a ton of up and coming potential 1996/2000 dem presidential candidates get investigated for various financial stuff as a punishment for that faction. After all, the DLC/libertarian-rockefeller rep hybrid types lost.

Dems come back in 2000 or 2004 though and are more economically/socially liberal than the era's dems.
 

Sabin

I wonder if a second Bush term actually helps Buchanan's chances in the primary. It's historically difficult for an administration to win a third term, let alone a fifth one. Bob Dole 's campaign in 1996 was "The Most Electable Republican Alternative to Bill Clinton." He's not going to have that in 1996. What's he going to run on? "Everything's great. Vote for me to keep it going." "I'm in between Bush and Reagan on the conservative scale, vote for me." It could end up being a much more rancorous primary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top