Better Bob Dole Running Mate

Republican Party of Texas convention delegates informally nominated Alan Keyes as their preference for Vice President. I personally believed Jack Kemp was removed from the crowd he was appealing to and that Pat Buchanan would have helped unify the party but it appeared there was bad blood between Dole and Buchanan. Other politicians named as possible GOP VP nominees before Kemp was selected included: Lamar Alexander, George Allen, Dick Armey, John Ashcroft, James Baker, David Beasley, Bill Bennett, etc.
 
Last edited:
Republican Party of Texas convention delegates informally nominated Alan Keyes as their preference for Vice President. I personally believed Pat Buchanan would have helped unify the party. Other politicians named as possible GOP VP nominees before Kemp was selected included: Lamar Alexander, George Allen, Dick Armey, John Ashcroft, James Baker, David Beasley, Bill Bennett, etc.

Buchanan might have gotten some blue-collar social conservatives who voted for Perot to vote for Dole, but that IMO would be more than compensated by moderate Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, especially in white-collar suburbs, deserting the GOP ticket. (They represented a much larger percentage of the GOP vote in 1996 than they do today.)

(Buchanan won exactly one primary in 1996--New Hampshire--and (despite the *Union Leader*'s support--did so with only 27 percent of the vote, less than he got in the state in 1992...)

None of the other candidates would have made any real difference--and on balance I don't even think Buchanan or Keyes would have made much of one. As I keep repeating here, "Nobody votes for the Veep." http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...minute/2000/06/nobody_votes_for_the_veep.html They don't even make much difference in their home states. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...verrated-vice-presidential-home-state-effect/

In a very close election, like 2000, a running mate arguably can make a difference. 1996 was not such a race; Dole lost by 7.5 percentage points. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1996
 
If someone like Kasich was tapped (or anyone that was eyeing 2000, really), it might've swayed how 2000 turns out, but it won't make much of a difference in 1996. Clinton wins that one.
 
How about SC Gov. Carroll Campbell? He'd have certainly helped in the South a potentially flipped a few close states. That being said his past with Atwater and their campaign indirectly attacking their Jewish opponent could see states with large Jewish populations swing further to the Democrats (Florida?)
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
Ted Bundy? *stares knowingly into space*

The issue with Bob Dole is that by 1996 was largely substance with no style, and at a disadvantage due to his age. Clinton had the advantage of facing no serious opposition in the Primaries, and thus could focus himself of building his base for the election whilst Dole had to fight of competition. Dole's association with the unpopular Gingrich, who had singlehandedly swung Clinton into a comfortable poll position by sheer toxicity, would tar him, and Perot's absence from debates was significant as it forced Dole to debate Clinton alone.

Dole's running mate will be superfluous to if he wins, although depending on the level of involvement and energy the running mate brings you could see a swing here and there. For Dole to win, you must recontextualize the race, set Clinton at a disadvantage, and have him be unable to pull out the poll slump he experienced.

Despite the superfluous nature of the Running Mate, having anyone but Jack Kemp is perfect for Dole and would have helped the campaign. William Bennett, Carroll Campbell, ted bundy, these are just a few options for people who would have worked better then Kemp.
 
None of the other candidates would have made any real difference--and on balance I don't even think Buchanan or Keyes would have made much of one. As I keep repeating here, "Nobody votes for the Veep."

If someone like Kasich was tapped (or anyone that was eyeing 2000, really), it might've swayed how 2000 turns out, but it won't make much of a difference in 1996. Clinton wins that one.
The only reason why I post these threads is because I want to see if the defeated presidential candidate stood a better chance if they choose a more appealing partner. More advantageous partnerships in my past threads included:

Gore-Graham, Kerry-Gephardt, McCain-Pawlenty, and Romney-Rubio.
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'



The only reason why I post these threads is because I want to see if the defeated presidential candidate stood a better chance if they choose a more appealing partner.

The Veep won't tilt the balance unless the race is close, and without a PoD within the first term that directly effects Clinton, it's the same outcome as IoTL.
 
It's very unlikely a different running mate would have helped the GOP in 1996, given that they were trying to unseat an incumbent. It appeared to many (including me) that the GOP knew they weren't going to win, and pretty much let Dole have a shot as a sort of retirement gift: one last moment in the sun, if you will.

Indeed, the GOP might well have done better with Kemp at the top of the ticket: an articulate former NFL quarterback with plenty of cabinet-level experience; a relatively general appeal; no off-putting or Herbert Hooveresque personality / lack thereof. Give him NJ governor Christie Whitman as a running mate and you might just scare the crap out of Clinton if not unseat him outright.
 

Selection of running mates now serve as an indicator to the population what kind of administration the President intends to run. So Clinton picking Gore in 1992 confirmed his stance as a moderate. Likewise, Reagan picked Bush in 1980 to settle fears that he'd be extremely ideological.

In that sense, it doesn't matter who the person is, or how they perform during the campaign. It's about either unifying the party or how the ticket is portrayed among the general electorate.

So that Clinton picked Gore instead of some other centrist Democrat might not have mattered. But picking a centrist Democrat instead of a liberal probably did matter in the 1992 election because it would undermine the general tenor of Clinton's campaign.

Likewise if Reagan had picked another conservative like himself in 1980 instead of of reaching out to the Republican Establishment, it might have meant a more divided party or scared some people away from Reagan.

If Dole picked Buchanan in the 1996 election, the general campaign would be different - especially because Buchanan would have insisted on a more cultural conservative campaign. I don't know if that would be better than Kemp, but it would have an impact.

VP selection won't affect most people's votes, but it can matter to the undecided voter who often determines the election.

This is different than in the time of machine politics that existed in the pre-WWII era when the machines could deliver the votes in states, and the parties were less ideologically pure than they are now. So I agree they are less important, but not totally unimportant.
 
Selection of running mates now serve as an indicator to the population what kind of administration the President intends to run. So Clinton picking Gore in 1992 confirmed his stance as a moderate. Likewise, Reagan picked Bush in 1980 to settle fears that he'd be extremely ideological.

In that sense, it doesn't matter who the person is, or how they perform during the campaign. It's about either unifying the party or how the ticket is portrayed among the general electorate.

So that Clinton picked Gore instead of some other centrist Democrat might not have mattered. But picking a centrist Democrat instead of a liberal probably did matter in the 1992 election because it would undermine the general tenor of Clinton's campaign.

Michael Dukakis chose Lloyd Bentsen to reach out to moderate-to-conservative Democrats. It had virtually no effect; Dukakis lost every southern state, including of course Texas, where Bentsen was easily re-elected as senator. The way the national ticket is perceived by the voters depends almost entirely on the presidential candidate, not on his running mate.
 
Top