Al Gore in '88

MrHola

Banned
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore_presidential_campaign,_1988
Al Gore run in the 1988 Democratic primaries. He ran as a southern centrist. He was defeated in the primaries by Jesse Jackson who late ron was defeated by Dukakis. Ih there any way that gore could have been the nominee? Who would be his Running Mate? If Gore won, how would he deal with the Gulf War and the collapse of the USSR? If he lost, who would be Clinton's Running Mate?
 
Would Gore have had more of a chance in 88'? It seems that he ran as more of a centrist than he did in 2000. He also would have been one the youngest presidents ever.
 
I don't think Gore would have won vs. George H. W. Bush. Had he been the VP nominee that year, he would have been the front runner in '92. Butterfly away the 1989 incident where his son Albert was hit by a car and nearly killed (or lessen the severity of the boy's injuries) and Gore probably runs in '92 and, given the dynamics of Bush's term as POTUS, the Gore-Gephardt team likely wins.
 
Keeping Jackson out of the race might've made him the nominee, but I agree with everyone else (so far) that he couldn't likely beat Bush. Couldn't be nearly as bad a loss as Dukakis, which maybe helps some down-ticket races.

If Jackson doesn't run in 88, maybe he runs in 92. If he does, Clinton has a fight on his hands. His support amongst African Americans disappears and he's left squabbling with Tsongas for the center of the party. However Jackson doesn't have a lock on the left with Brown out there.

Basically Clinton still looks like the best option to Primary voters, but he has to appease the party progressives by picking a more progressive VP.

In closing, whether Jackson runs in 92 or not, Clinton probably chooses Jackson as VP. He wanted to IOTL. ITTL, it makes even more political sense.
 
Keeping Jackson out of the race might've made him the nominee, but I agree with everyone else (so far) that he couldn't likely beat Bush. Couldn't be nearly as bad a loss as Dukakis, which maybe helps some down-ticket races.

If Jackson doesn't run in 88, maybe he runs in 92. If he does, Clinton has a fight on his hands. His support amongst African Americans disappears and he's left squabbling with Tsongas for the center of the party. However Jackson doesn't have a lock on the left with Brown out there.

Basically Clinton still looks like the best option to Primary voters, but he has to appease the party progressives by picking a more progressive VP.

In closing, whether Jackson runs in 92 or not, Clinton probably chooses Jackson as VP. He wanted to IOTL. ITTL, it makes even more political sense.

How so?:confused:
 
One, because Clinton would need to solidify the party after a shaky primary season and Jackson's the logical choice emerging from the campaign with which to manage that.
And two, because the labor and race rhetoric that helped Jackson in '88 would result in a somewhat different campaign in '92. The economy was on a down-swing. People were looking for a way to ease mounting racial tension (Rodney King is butterflied, but the tension is still there.) Jackson's message makes somewhat more sense in '92.

And maybe four years on the sidelines cools Jackson's jets a bit and he makes fewer gaffs.

I will say there is probably one choice that solidifies the left even more and that's Ted Kennedy, if you can get him to run. But that's unlikely.
 
I think if Jesse(Maybe he recieved more staunch opposition from the Jewish community in 1987) stays out of the race, I think Gore would be able to gain significant traction with the black vote running as a post-civil rights era, young Southern moderate. He could better fight for the centrist role with Gephardt instead of running such a negative campaign against Dukakis and Jackson like he did in otl.

If he Al could pull of a suprise victory over Gephardt in Iowa, then that would be enough to probably means that cuts off Gephardt, Biden, and simon...or a more competetive race. I could even see a scenario where no candidate recieves the necessary amount of delegates to clich the nomination and Gore emerges at the compromise candiate.

Who, this early Al Gore chooses his running mate will be interesting he could either go with a Senator(A much older statesman like Bentsen with a signifcant foreign policy record), a liberal northeastern Governor (Dukakis, Casey, or even Cuomo possibly) or if he remains weak with black voters, he could go with a minority(Jesse probably not...but Andrew Young, Benjamin O. Davis Jr,Collin Powell etc).

And could that said running mate help the young Al Gore fight off against Bush and the Attwater machine?
 

Ibn Warraq

Banned
Al Gore never had a serious chance in 88 and no one gave him one. He was just too conservative for the party establishment in 88.

It wasn't until 92, after being out of the White House for 12 years they were willing to have a more centrist candidate.

Now, had Gore been somewhat more liberal, he might have had a chance against Dukakis, particularly if he ran a better campaign in ATL than OTL.

Remember, back then he was quite good-looking(I'm being serious, I remember lots of girls in college thought he was hot).

He could portray himself as the new JFK, and remember JFK had even more of a mystique back then and rather than running as a blue-dog democrat, which is what he ran as, portray himself as the new guy with the bold new ideas, the way Gary Hart had in 1984.

In fact, were it not for the sex scandal, Gary Hart might have won the nomination, so Gore could easily portray himself as Hart without the sleaze.

As to who he chooses as a nominee, I think he would have gone for party unity and also to counter the charges of inexperience I think he would have chosen an older, well established party hand. Cuomo would be a good choice if, and that's a big if, he'd accept.

And yes, he'd definitely have a better shot at beating Bush than Dukakis. Bush would have had to run a completely different campaign since screaming "liberal,liberal,liberal,liberal,liberal" wouldn't work against Gore.
 
Last edited:

Ibn Warraq

Banned
Keeping Jackson out of the race might've made him the nominee, but I agree with everyone else (so far) that he couldn't likely beat Bush. Couldn't be nearly as bad a loss as Dukakis, which maybe helps some down-ticket races.

If Jackson doesn't run in 88, maybe he runs in 92. If he does, Clinton has a fight on his hands. His support amongst African Americans disappears and he's left squabbling with Tsongas for the center of the party. However Jackson doesn't have a lock on the left with Brown out there.

Basically Clinton still looks like the best option to Primary voters, but he has to appease the party progressives by picking a more progressive VP.

In closing, whether Jackson runs in 92 or not, Clinton probably chooses Jackson as VP. He wanted to IOTL. ITTL, it makes even more political sense.


I've never heard the slightest suggestion that Clinton wanted Jackson as his VP. Had he done so, the Republicans would have started high-fiving each other as soon as it was announced.
 
Al Gore never had a serious chance in 88 and no one gave him one. He was just too conservative for the party establishment in 88.

It wasn't until 92, after being out of the White House for 12 years they were willing to have a more centrist candidate.

Now, had Gore been somewhat more liberal, he might have had a chance against Dukakis, particularly if he ran a better campaign in ATL than OTL.

Remember, back then he was quite good-looking(I'm being serious, I remember lots of girls in college thought he was hot).

He could portray himself as the new JFK, and remember JFK had even more of a mystique back then and rather than running as a blue-dog democrat, which is what he ran as, portray himself as the new guy with the bold new ideas, the way Gary Hart had in 1984.

In fact, were it not for the sex scandal, Gary Hart might have won the nomination, so Gore could easily portray himself as Hart without the sleaze.

As to who he chooses as a nominee, I think he would have gone for party unity and also to counter the charges of inexperience I think he would have chosen an older, well established party hand. Cuomo would be a good choice if, and that's a big if, he'd accept.

And yes, he'd definitely have a better shot at beating Bush than Dukakis. Bush would have had to run a completely different campaign since screaming "liberal,liberal,liberal,liberal,liberal" wouldn't work against Gore.


I agree to alot of what you said...I think Bush would proably run a Campaign based on Gore's lack of experience when compared to Bush's long service record. Any potential VP running mates that Gore could pick beside Cuomo that would shore up his lack of foriegn policy credentials? Paul Tsongas maybe?
 
I agree to alot of what you said...I think Bush would proably run a Campaign based on Gore's lack of experience when compared to Bush's long service record. Any potential VP running mates that Gore could pick beside Cuomo that would shore up his lack of foriegn policy credentials? Paul Tsongas maybe?


The thing is I don't think it matters who the Dems run in '88. Bush was basically running as "Ronald Reagan's third term". Which gave him a huge automatic vote. I personally think that Gore could have run and probably done better that Dukakis but long term the only difference would have been that he would have been "damaged goods" when Clinton was looking for a VP. So we would not have had Clinton/Gore we would have had Clinton/<somebody else>.
 
The thing is I don't think it matters who the Dems run in '88. Bush was basically running as "Ronald Reagan's third term". Which gave him a huge automatic vote. I personally think that Gore could have run and probably done better that Dukakis but long term the only difference would have been that he would have been "damaged goods" when Clinton was looking for a VP. So we would not have had Clinton/Gore we would have had Clinton/<somebody else>.

That wasn't always the case in the 1988 Election, at one point Dukakis was almost 20 points ahead of Bush in the polls. Bush was a pretty weak candidate, and it was only the Atwater machine and Dukakis's gaffes that he was able to pull it off. I think a moderate like Gore would have been able to more or less hold on to that lead untill election day.
 
That wasn't always the case in the 1988 Election, at one point Dukakis was almost 20 points ahead of Bush in the polls. Bush was a pretty weak candidate, and it was only the Atwater machine and Dukakis's gaffes that he was able to pull it off. I think a moderate like Gore would have been able to more or less hold on to that lead untill election day.


Mmmm, maybe. I may be looking back with some colored glasses but as I recall at the time it seemed like Dukakis was pretty much a joke - a place holder candidate because the Democrats didn't want to run against "Reagan III".

Now that perception may have been wrong, I was living in a heavily Republican district at the time - and not paying as much attention to politics as I do now (last year of collage, first year of marriage and all of that!).

However...even assuming you are right and it was Dukakis's gaffes and Atwater's political machine that made the difference. Well Atwater would still have been on Bush I's side and Gore made enough gaffes of his own when he ran that it might not have made that big a difference.

It might have been closer - and the Supreme Court was not stacked in favor of the Republicans like 2000, so a close election might have gone to the House. But IIRC the House was Republican in 1988? So that would have handed it to Bush.
 
Top