1996 Election - With a different GOP candidate.

Ford1976

Banned
Let's say Dole doesn't run in 1996, who would most likely win the nod from the GOP? Can they beat Cinton?

Potential GOP Candidates:
Tommy Thompson, Governor of Wisconsin
John McCain, U.S. Senator from Arizona
Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the House

Feel free to add more. I'm saying Tommy Thompson has a legit shot at nod because of his national popularity in the mid '90's.
 
Cheney seriously considered running in 1996, but decided not to because of his health issues (heart problems)

Cheney would probably do better than Dole, but Clinton would still win.

A Cheney/McCain ticket would be able to give Clinton a run for his money.

Wishing you well, his majesty,
The Scandinavian Emperor
 
Cheney seriously considered running in 1996, but decided not to because of his health issues (heart problems)

Cheney would probably do better than Dole, but Clinton would still win.

A Cheney/McCain ticket would be able to give Clinton a run for his money.

Wishing you well, his majesty,
The Scandinavian Emperor

If McCain had entered, but Bob Dole had not, then I believe that McCain would have won the nomination. I don't see Cheney making much of a difference or doing better than Dole. I think McCain would have been the best match for Clinton in '96.
 
I don't know much about Thompson, but wasn't Mckaine involved in some sort of scandle in 96? Obviously it didn't sink him, but it made it dificult for him to run that year. Can't see it being Gingritch either-and you can forget Buchanan, who was way too extreme for the average voter.

Jack Kemp was Dole's running mate in OTL-he could be a front runner for the nomination, not sure if he'd get it though. Other contenders are Phill Gram, Lamar Alexander and Carroll Campbell. I could be imagining this, but didn't Rummy explore a run in 1996?

Personally I think the nomination would go to either Gram or Kemp. In the end it probably won't matter who the GOP nominee is-with the economy purring along and Clinton remaining popular, few voters will feel the need for a change.
 
The Republican bench in 1996 was surprisingly weak, largely due to the party's congressional minorities in the late '80s and early '90s. There simply were not that many strong options. It was also a strong year for Clinton, who never trailed Dole in 1996 (though he did prior to the fall of 1995). The Republican nominee would need to be someone who could emphasize Clinton's failings, resurrect the Reagan coalition, and be personally impressive enough to out-duel the highly charismatic President. There weren't that many candidates who could do that. Dole certainly couldn't, and it's arguable that Jack Kemp or Dan Quayle (two favorites of the right) would actually do worse. Dick Cheney was a strong candidate on foreign policy, but 1996 wasn't about foreign affairs (though he could attack Clinton for Somalia) and besides, Cheney was totally lacking gravitas. John McCain's connection with the Keating Five would significantly hurt his chances at winning the nomination to begin with, and despite some strong contrasts with Clinton, would probably do about as well as Dole. Tommy Thompson's big issue (workfare) had been swept out from under him by Clinton in 1996, and his appeal to the GOP base would be limited.

The one candidate who I could see legitimately challenging Clinton for the Presidency would be Colin Powell. His record in the military speaks for itself. It stands as a stark contrast to Clinton's lack of service, and would help bolster a leadership argument. Powell's moderate politics would also benefit him, as he could legitimately argue that he could work just as well with the Democratic minority as he could with Gingrich and the GOP. The issue of race would also be diluted, as Powell defies most negative stereotypes of African-Americans while still being a proud member of that community. In short, he's the perfect general election candidate and would make for a very close race. However, he would have to make it out of the Republican primaries first. That would be the real challenge. Dole had trouble with Pat Buchanan and Steve Forbes early on, and he was much more conservative than Powell. It would be a very tough race, and his best chance would be to persuade the Republican power elite to support his candidacy as the best chance to win.
 
Clinton was not going to lose in '96. Republican heavy-hitters knew this and it's why so many decided to sit that election out. His approval had rebounded considerably in 1995 and he maintained a healthy lead over Bob Dole for pretty much the entire campaign (after January '96, I don't know if there was one poll that had Dole within five points, let alone winning).

I think Clinton was in a similar position as Reagan in '84. Some of the opposing candidates would have made the race better and more contested than the eventual challenger, but not enough to outright win the vote. Powell could have made things more tight, certainly, but even he, I believe, would have still lost.

It takes a lot to unseat an incumbent president. Hell, even the most unpopular don't go down without a fight (Carter and Reagan were in a statistic dead heat until the final weeks of their campaign) and Clinton WAS popular. To knock off a popular incumbent, with the economy growing and general peace around the world, seems very unlikely. For Clinton to lose in '96, you need another bimbo eruption or something far more serious - like him impregnating someone.
 

Ford1976

Banned
I really feel that Tommy would have a shot at beating Clinton. He could campaign solely on his record as Governor, first by being elected as Conservative to three terms (he was elected to 4) in a nationally liberal state. Second he campaigns with the record of a welfare reformer, that he, not Clinton, started the reform. Thirdly, he appeals to the base by campaigning for the school choice program which he, again, was the first to champion in Wisconsin before other Republican governors across the nation, as well as the GOP, adopted the concept.

He's moderate enough to win over independents and conservative enough to win over the party. He could've carried the more liberal Midwestern states that Clinton took in '92, and had a real shot at beating Clinton.
 
I agree that the GOP thought that it was going to be a Clinton victory, thus the weak candidate.

But DOle did suprisingly well, IMO, despite a weak campaign. I volunteered on that campaign, just a little, and was shocked at the level of responsibility given me.:(

A stronger candidate, IMO, could have surprised everyone.





The Republican bench in 1996 was surprisingly weak, largely due to the party's congressional minorities in the late '80s and early '90s. There simply were not that many strong options. It was also a strong year for Clinton, who never trailed Dole in 1996 (though he did prior to the fall of 1995). The Republican nominee would need to be someone who could emphasize Clinton's failings, resurrect the Reagan coalition, and be personally impressive enough to out-duel the highly charismatic President. There weren't that many candidates who could do that. Dole certainly couldn't, and it's arguable that Jack Kemp or Dan Quayle (two favorites of the right) would actually do worse. Dick Cheney was a strong candidate on foreign policy, but 1996 wasn't about foreign affairs (though he could attack Clinton for Somalia) and besides, Cheney was totally lacking gravitas. John McCain's connection with the Keating Five would significantly hurt his chances at winning the nomination to begin with, and despite some strong contrasts with Clinton, would probably do about as well as Dole. Tommy Thompson's big issue (workfare) had been swept out from under him by Clinton in 1996, and his appeal to the GOP base would be limited.

The one candidate who I could see legitimately challenging Clinton for the Presidency would be Colin Powell. His record in the military speaks for itself. It stands as a stark contrast to Clinton's lack of service, and would help bolster a leadership argument. Powell's moderate politics would also benefit him, as he could legitimately argue that he could work just as well with the Democratic minority as he could with Gingrich and the GOP. The issue of race would also be diluted, as Powell defies most negative stereotypes of African-Americans while still being a proud member of that community. In short, he's the perfect general election candidate and would make for a very close race. However, he would have to make it out of the Republican primaries first. That would be the real challenge. Dole had trouble with Pat Buchanan and Steve Forbes early on, and he was much more conservative than Powell. It would be a very tough race, and his best chance would be to persuade the Republican power elite to support his candidacy as the best chance to win.


I disagree that his moderate policies would help him in the general election. YOu need to give conservative democrats a reason to cross party lines.

But I agree he was the best candidate at that time to beat Clinton and would likely have done so.

A strong conservative VP would help with the base.

Forbes or Buchanan would be good.
 
I disagree that his moderate policies would help him in the general election. YOu need to give conservative democrats a reason to cross party lines.

That's why I think McCain would have had the best chance against Clinton in '96. He was a political Maverick, well known and respected Senator, and had strong appeal to both independents and democrats, especially in 2000.

The Keating Five scandal, while damaging to McCain, is something that he can overcome if he can explain it well enough.
 
I entirely agree with the assessment that Clinton was simply not going to lose in 1996. That being said, I think Powell would have been the strongest candidate, even more so than McCain or Thompson. The first reason is that McCain has a habit of making unfortunate gaffes. He's a passionate guy, a trait that can be both beneficial and problematic. That was made clear in 2000 and 2008. The second problem that McCain has is that he hasn't made a name for himself yet. His maverick record was already established, as were his credential on foreign relations. But he needed more time to move up the ranks, and was better suited as a Vice-Presidential candidate than as the top dog on the ticket.

The problems with Thompson have less to do with his record as Governor and more to do with his personality. When he ran in 2008, he wasn't able to inspire anybody. Clinton, on the other hand, is incredibly inspirational and moving. The contrast would be too great. Thompson has a great deal in common with Dole. Both had a strong resume as policy leaders, but both failed in being able to move voters on the national level.

Powell is really the best of both men. His record in the military speaks for itself. He served on the ground in Vietnam, and was badly wounded. But he also served as a troop commander, an area where leadership counts the most. His record in government as an adviser to Presidents Reagan and Bush is also particularly strong. I can personally attest that he is a charismatic, powerful, and surprisingly funny public speaker. He would be able to draw some Reagan Democrats into the fold with his background and views on many issues. His foreign policy views are also quite appealing. The line that has often been attributed to him (despite his claims that he never said it) is "you break it you buy it." That would be an excellent go-to in regard to Somalia. His views are neo-realist, providing a strong counter punch to Clinton's neo-liberalism. He would be a well-rounded candidate who would push Clinton to the very end, though I agree that Powell would still probably lose.

There's a vignette that Powell often says at the end of his motivational speeches. It's about the greatness of America. He talks about walking down the street in New York and getting a hot dog from an immigrant vendor. The gist of the story is that people come to America because it's a great nation, and sell one of the most American foods once they're here. I don't remember all the details of the speech, but it was quite moving. It's the sort of ending to a stump speech that is perfect for a Presidential campaign, and one that symbolizes why Powell would be such a strong nominee.
 
That's why I think McCain would have had the best chance against Clinton in '96. He was a political Maverick, well known and respected Senator, and had strong appeal to both independents and democrats, especially in 2000.

The Keating Five scandal, while damaging to McCain, is something that he can overcome if he can explain it well enough.




Powell is just as moderate, but without the years of fighting against various conservative policy or issue goals, that would piss off the Right.

He could have it both ways. Appeal to the moderates because of his policies. Appeal to conservatives because of his participation in the Reagan/Bush administrations.
 

Ford1976

Banned
The problems with Thompson have less to do with his record as Governor and more to do with his personality. When he ran in 2008, he wasn't able to inspire anybody. Clinton, on the other hand, is incredibly inspirational and moving. The contrast would be too great. Thompson has a great deal in common with Dole. Both had a strong resume as policy leaders, but both failed in being able to move voters on the national level.
.


The 1996 Tommy was a different Tommy, than the 2008 one. The 1996 TT, had momentum on his side with the School Choice, LearnFare, and Work Not Welfare programs all being catapulted, as well as him, into the national spotlight. He was inspiring millions of Wisconsinites and other Midwesterner's.

The two biggest problem's with the 2008 Tommy were, 1.) He was 67 years old, though McCain was 72, and 2.) He had been out of the Governor's chair for almost seven years, and didn't make any great leaps as the Secretary of HHS. Had he ran in '96 when he was still Governor and in the national spotlight, IMO, he could've beaten Clinton.
 
IMO, he could've beaten Clinton.

How? Unemployment was 5.4%, GDP grew 3.8%, the budget deficit and national debt were rapidly declining, and Clinton had effectively won the PR battle against Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress. I agree with your hypothesis that Thompson would make a superior candidate to Dole, but there was too much stacked against him. It's like saying that Mitt Romney could have beaten Obama in 2008 because he had business experience, had already reformed health care in Massachusetts, and had a moderate record. None of those things would have mattered because the economy was in such bad shape in the fall of '08. Conversely, the economy was growing, the deficit was shrinking, and the President was at a 54% approval rating going into the election (it was as high as 60% in the summer). Thompson would have been a sacrificial lamb, a good one, but still a sacrifice to Clinton.

Let's even say that Thompson does five percentage points better than the President across the board. That's a big what-if, but this is an alternate history site so why not? Let's assume he outperforms Clinton in the debates, distances himself from the unpopular Congress, and effectively casts himself as the Republican Clinton (a reformer who would bring responsive government to Washington). In this scenario, Thompson wins the popular vote by a 45-44 margin over Clinton, with Perot finishing with 8% (hard to tell what impact Thompson would have on the Perot vote, so let's not address that haphazardly.) Here's what a likely map would be:

genusmap.php


Even in this extremely unrealistic scenario (out campaigning and out debating the greatest Democratic candidate since JFK), Thompson would still narrowly lose the electoral vote by a margin of 275-263. My point is simply that 1996 was not a Republican year, and even giving Thompson a 10-point swing in his favor was not going to give him the election.
 
Top