If Clinton Doesn't Run in 1992, then Who Wins the Election?
- Thread starter Amadeus
- Start date
Agreed. The Establishment lines up behind Tsongas in order to stop Jerry Brown. Although, Tsongas would probably not be able to run for re-election in 1996, because he received a bone marrow transplant in May of that year. So, he passes the torch to whomever his vice president is (potential VPs: Bob Kerrey, Jay Rockefeller, Tom Harkin, Bob Graham, or Lee H. Hamilton).
Last edited:
I think Tsongas could beat Bush, but it'd be a close race. Bush could easily attack Tsongas as a New England liberal on social issues, and Tsongas' conservative economic policies might cause some Democratic voters to defect to Perot. Tsongas was also a poor speaker, which became a source of mockery on SNL. But even with all his drawbacks, Tsongas would still benefit from party fatigue and the bad economy. Whether or not it'd be enough to elect him is hard to say.
I would think that John Kerry would have a much greater chance with no Clinton in the race. With the cold war ending people, especially the baby boomers were looking for generational change. John Kerry lost the white male centrist subprimary in the field to Clinton. No Clinton and maybe he has more of a chance. In a general election I always thought he would do quite well.
A huge part of the Clinton primary wins in 1992 and 2016 was the African American vote lining up behind them. The problem in 2008 really was that this didn't happen. In modern primary history, African Americans have generally backed the establishment candidate (Mondale, Gore, Kerry) unless an African-American was running as a major candidate (Jackson, Obama).
The other issue is that Bill Clinton's most plausible rivals all had serious issues, almost as bad as Clinton's. Tsongas had bad health and his economic policies were too conservative for the electorate. Kerrey had a Vietnam scandal which was not known at the time. Brown was viewed as flaky and the nationwide party establishment pretty much vetoed his candidacy. Harkin's candidacy fell flat for reasons I honestly don't understand. For that matter, Hillary Clinton in2016 got to run against a socialist.
My suspicion is that the party establishment would have drafted someone at the last minute. Most likely Gore, who did finish third in 1988 and was selected for Veep and as the presidential candidate later. I can't think of anyone else plausible.
The other issue is that Bill Clinton's most plausible rivals all had serious issues, almost as bad as Clinton's. Tsongas had bad health and his economic policies were too conservative for the electorate. Kerrey had a Vietnam scandal which was not known at the time. Brown was viewed as flaky and the nationwide party establishment pretty much vetoed his candidacy. Harkin's candidacy fell flat for reasons I honestly don't understand. For that matter, Hillary Clinton in2016 got to run against a socialist.
My suspicion is that the party establishment would have drafted someone at the last minute. Most likely Gore, who did finish third in 1988 and was selected for Veep and as the presidential candidate later. I can't think of anyone else plausible.
Gore was going to announce his candidacy in early 1991, but then his son had suffered from an accident in April 1989.
Is there any evidence that without Clinton, John Kerry would've run instead?
Ricardolindo
Banned
Actually, I read, elsewhere, in this forum that Tsongas may have attracted Perot voters. What do you think?
Well, Tsongas was a deficit hawk. That could attract Perot voters. But he was also a strong supporter of free trade, which Perot hated. Liberal Democrats didn't like Tsongas in the primaries (unions in particular were uncomfortable with him), and while some would support him in order to defeat Bush I think others would either stay home or vote for Perot.
I think if Tsongas wins, he wins narrowly but probably dies sometime in his first term. (IOTL he died on January 18, 1997).