Bob Dole does not run in 1996

samcster94

Banned
Dole was against a weak 1996 field of competitors. What if he did not run in 1996 and somebody else ran against Bill Clinton??? Given this is the 90's, the Reform Party was strong at the time(in OTL, they later had Ventura win in Minnesota's governor race), and would probably put Perot back in. Would Perot do better and would Bill still win?
 
It depends on a lot of things. Who’s the republican candidate for one. If they choose someone worse (I don’t know who)May do better. Perot is a wild card. He probably stays at 8% unless the republican candidate is so horribly bad or so wonderfully good. Just my thoughts. I think the candidate best faring against Clinton would be Jack Kemp.
 
Clinton either does better, or Perot does better and Clinton does the same as OTL. Keep in mind, the runner up in 1996 was Pat Buchanan of all people and the other candidates consisted of Phil Graham, Lamar Alexander, IRC, Dick Lugar, and Steve Forbs. Buchanan, Graham, and Forbs would've done worse than Dole for a variety of reasons, and Alexander and Lugar at best would've done the same, although I think they would've done worse due to lack of name recognition. I doubt Dole's vacancy from the race prompts anyone else to enter either.
 

samcster94

Banned
It depends on a lot of things. Who’s the republican candidate for one. If they choose someone worse (I don’t know who)May do better. Perot is a wild card. He probably stays at 8% unless the republican candidate is so horribly bad or so wonderfully good. Just my thoughts. I think the candidate best faring against Clinton would be Jack Kemp.
Kemp has so many obvious problems. He has bizarre opinions on foreign policy, not held office of any kind since 1993, and his immigration policy might alienate Republicans in this alternate 1996.
 
Gosh, this is a weak field, but maybe Lamar Alexander or Richard Lugar does better? I don't think Buchanan would pick up many Dole voters. If you assume that no other candidates declare, maybe Forbes slips through and gets crushed by Clinton in the general?

Screen Shot 2017-11-05 at 7.30.45 PM.png
 
It depends on a lot of things. Who’s the republican candidate for one. If they choose someone worse (I don’t know who)May do better. Perot is a wild card. He probably stays at 8% unless the republican candidate is so horribly bad or so wonderfully good. Just my thoughts. I think the candidate best faring against Clinton would be Jack Kemp.

Kemp has so many obvious problems. He has bizarre opinions on foreign policy, not held office of any kind since 1993, and his immigration policy might alienate Republicans in this alternate 1996.

Why would this matter?

Kemp's chance was '88 (as was Dole's for that matter). When you think about it, on paper Kemp should've been the right wing challenger to Bush, instead the right wing vote was split, with some going to Dole, some going to Pat Robertson, and some going to Bush himself due to his being Reagan's VP. After '88, Kemp pretty much became irrelevant until he was picked to be Dole's running mate.
 
Gosh, this is a weak field, but maybe Lamar Alexander or Richard Lugar does better? I don't think Buchanan would pick up many Dole voters. If you assume that no other candidates declare, maybe Forbes slips through and gets crushed by Clinton in the general?


Forbes was attacked by some religious conservatives for having a photograph by Robert Mapplethorpe on his yacht. Never mind that it was a perfectly innocuous seascape with no bullwhips in sight...

Seriously, absurd as this incident was in itself, it was symptomatic of a deeper problem Forbes had with social conservatives. For decades, he had criticized them in his column in *Forbes*: in 1988 for example he had called Pat Robertson a "toothy flake." After 1996 Forbes tried to re-invent himself as a social conservative, but it was too late. See https://www.salon.com/2000/02/10/forbes for an account of Forbes' transformation "from the optimistic, tax-cutting rich guy of yesteryear to the dour and sour culture warrior of today."

To win the GOP nomination, you don't have to be the most strident social conservative in the group, but you do at least have to be *acceptable* to social conservatives, and I am not sure that Forbes could accomplish that in 1996.

BTW, if we are talking about candidates who might jump in the race if Dole wasn't in it, we shouldn't forget Dan Quayle. A Harris Poll in January 1995 showed him in second place behind Dole, who had 29 percent. "Following Dole was former Vice President Dan Quayle with 20 percent, former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Colin Powell with 14 percent and former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Jack Kemp with 10 percent. None of the other potential candidates made it into double-digits." https://www.upi.com/Archives/1995/01/02/Poll-Dole-still-96-GOP-front-runner/8372789022800/ Granted, early polls are largely tests of name recognition, but the fact remains that Quayle was not a laughingstock *to Republicans* and could have been a serious contender for the nomination. (I think his chances of winning in November were minimal, but that's another matter--and even in November I'm not sure he would do much worse than Dole. With Perot in decline, just getting the GOP base vote probably gets you to around 40 percent.)
 
~~snip~~

BTW, if we are talking about candidates who might jump in the race if Dole wasn't in it, we shouldn't forget Dan Quayle. A Harris Poll in January 1995 showed him in second place behind Dole, who had 29 percent. "Following Dole was former Vice President Dan Quayle with 20 percent, former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Colin Powell with 14 percent and former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Jack Kemp with 10 percent. None of the other potential candidates made it into double-digits." https://www.upi.com/Archives/1995/01/02/Poll-Dole-still-96-GOP-front-runner/8372789022800/ Granted, early polls are largely tests of name recognition, but the fact remains that Quayle was not a laughingstock *to Republicans* and could have been a serious contender for the nomination. (I think his chances of winning in November were minimal, but that's another matter--and even in November I'm not sure he would do much worse than Dole. With Perot in decline, just getting the GOP base vote probably gets you to around 40 percent.)


As far as Quayle goes, I am pretty sure he didn't enter 1996 because he had phlebitis... (that being said, it would have been an interesting scenario, even though I believe Clinton would have won by an even bigger margin, winning at least the states he narrowly lost, such as Colorado)
 
If Kemp was the nominee, I would expect Buchanan to run third party. Remember, Buchanan was actually somewhat popular in '96 and the party leaders had to run a smear campaign and pump a lot of money into races they would not normally do to keep him out. Kemp met Buchanan's pro-life litmus test, but his views on immigration were badly out of synch with the party at whole (Kemp was a true open borders radical). Dole in '96 took a harder line on illegal immigration than he would have otherwise, due to pressure from Buchanan. It didn't matter, of course, because Clinton outflanked him on the issue with help from Barbara Jordan and the nativist wing of the Democratic Party.

A mix of protectionism, restrictionism, and populism has had a market in the Republican Party long before Trump, as Buchanan showed. The reason Trump was able to win was because unlike Buchanan and Huckabee, he wasn't a culture war radical who scared off blue state Republicans. If Buchanan had toned down his culture war stuff, he probably could have done a lot better.

Forbes was interesting and a good fit for the period. He was a true supply sider whose views were perfectly in tune for the booming stock market of the mid to late 90s. But I think he would have been more palatable in the general election than in the primary.
 
I don't see any reason why Jack Kemp would run given the reasoning he gave historically, and that reasoning would still have held even if Dole himself had not run. Maybe he endorses Steve Forbes earlier or takes a more active role in supporting Forbes's campaign, but I don't see much beyond that.

Looking through articles back in 1995 (the NYT principally), I figured I mind find some people who had put out feelers that later dropped out and endorsed Dole, principally to avoid getting in a primary fight with him and may have run otherwise. Fundraising however it seems was scaring off a lot of candidates more then anything else, as a lot depended on existing networks, and if you couldn't manage to get anyone on your team who had major connections with donors or a reliable system to work with, you were more or less screwed; Dan Quayle more or less bowed out because of difficulties in bringing such individuals onto his campaign. Governor Bill Weld was more concerned as to how a national campaign would affect his work as Governor, and there was already some concern with Pete Wilson and Arlen Specter both making noise about jumping into the race (that and he wasn't expected to go over well with the Republican electorate outside of the Northeast as is). Newt Gingrich definitely gave it some thought after Quayle dropped out, but there were concerns regarding how that may complicate his efforts in Congress, and at the time there were a couple of ongoing investigations by the Ethics Committee that would have raised eyebrows or cast a shadow over the campaign; that didn't keep him from making noise throughout the year however or allowing draft movement to pop up, so I suppose it is entirely possible that without Dole he may have ultimately decided to throw his hat into the ring, but given how most at the time were against him running in favor of him staying as Speaker, he may have struggled even with the majority of the establishment on his side. Dick Cheney dropped out of consideration even before Dole declared, but that was because of a lack of support more then anything.

So that really only leaves Phil Gramm who is already running, unless Newt Gingrich does opt to get into the race, as the potential establishment candidate (or at least, a candidate who was getting notable endorsers within Congress and elsewhere). Given his surprise defeat in Louisiana to Buchanan as his poor reputation among Republican Conservatives at the time, I don't know if he would do about the same as Dole or worse; even if he is weaker then Dole, those lost votes are split over a field of multiple candidates so it may not matter that much, and Louisiana could also serve as a wake-up call where instead of dropping out Gramm restructures his campaign to fix any perceived weaknesses making it stronger in the long-run.
 
The most interesting choice would've been Colin Powell, with all the caveats about getting him to run in the first place. While it's probably more likely he'd run a pretty managed, by-the-book 90s Republican campaign, part of me is curious what happens if he clashes sharply with the newly-dominant conservative faction. Say it's him against Pat Buchanan, who did pretty well IOTL. ITTL he's got not only a bevvy of semi-closeted racist feeling to draw upon, but in Powell a (potentially) genuine Rockefeller Republican trying to buck the party's trend line. If Powell were to lean into that contrast, the fight could be pretty epic, though likely damaging to the GOP.

Assuming Powell wins (which honestly he might not; 2016 has us all recalibrating likelihoods) he's pushing into Third Way territory domestically and maybe even pushing past Clinton to call out some of his shortcomings on poverty. But mostly he's hoping to make this about foreign policy. Clinton plays the experience card as much as possible. Perot might not run as Powell really undercuts him on most issues except trade, and the horse has already left that barn.

Does Buchanan run as a spoiler? I would flip a coin, honestly. His funding would be set for the duration if he fully embraced the religious right. But we already kind of know what happens without Pat Buchanan, as a lot of conservatives stayed home for Dole. His presence might even have a positive effect on Powell's chances if Powell's got a ceiling problem and a strong third party lowers the number necessary to win.

Do African Americans break for Powell? God, that's a tough one. Jesse Jackson still carries a lot of weight at this time, and Al Sharpton's right behind him. My gut says they rally behind Clinton and defections are kept below 15%, but if they don't those numbers could spike pretty high. Maybe 50%, maybe more?

I think it's a close race. On the fundamentals you give it to Clinton, but it's a possible sea change election with Powell in the right frame of mind and those are unpredictable.
 
The most interesting choice would've been Colin Powell, with all the caveats about getting him to run in the first place. While it's probably more likely he'd run a pretty managed, by-the-book 90s Republican campaign, part of me is curious what happens if he clashes sharply with the newly-dominant conservative faction. Say it's him against Pat Buchanan, who did pretty well IOTL. ITTL he's got not only a bevvy of semi-closeted racist feeling to draw upon, but in Powell a (potentially) genuine Rockefeller Republican trying to buck the party's trend line. If Powell were to lean into that contrast, the fight could be pretty epic, though likely damaging to the GOP.
Powell has over time for me come across as something of a paper tiger, a potentially strong candidate whose real strengths were based on people's perceptions of him rather than his actual views. The moment he hits the campaign trail those poll numbers were going to crash as Republican voters enter the "respect him, but no longer my choice" category. It doesn't help that the issue of abortion was a relatively high-profile issue at the time, and Powell's pro-choice position would have alienated a whole swathe of voters who had become invested in that fight by the middle of 1995.

Does Buchanan run as a spoiler? I would flip a coin, honestly. His funding would be set for the duration if he fully embraced the religious right. But we already kind of know what happens without Pat Buchanan, as a lot of conservatives stayed home for Dole. His presence might even have a positive effect on Powell's chances if Powell's got a ceiling problem and a strong third party lowers the number necessary to win.
Howard Phillips would have been elated certainly given he tried to get Buchanan to run as the Taxpayers nominee in both '92 and '96, and I'd say there is certainly a good chance he would should Powell somehow capture the nomination and decide to run with someone like Arlen Specter. Whether it would somehow serve as the kind of release valve Thurmond's campaign did for Harry Truman back in '48 I honestly don't know, that being dependent on how loyal Republicans would be to the ticket after the primary fight and whether Powell can expand his appeal; if he is losing the Conservatives to Buchanan or they are staying home, that just means he needs that many more Moderates to make up the margins against Clinton.

Do African Americans break for Powell? God, that's a tough one. Jesse Jackson still carries a lot of weight at this time, and Al Sharpton's right behind him. My gut says they rally behind Clinton and defections are kept below 15%, but if they don't those numbers could spike pretty high. Maybe 50%, maybe more?
There isn't much chance of Colin Powell making a break into the African American demographic. Sure you might see a spike in support in terms of Powell being the first African-American nominee, but I find it hard to believe it would be that substantial as on issues that African-Americans care about Powell would be pressured to take a relatively Republican viewpoint, and as you said a lot of the more influential African-American figures would be making the rounds and working to make sure the community stays loyal to Clinton and the Democratic Party.
 
Does Buchanan run as a spoiler? I would flip a coin, honestly. His funding would be set for the duration if he fully embraced the religious right. But we already kind of know what happens without Pat Buchanan, as a lot of conservatives stayed home for Dole. His presence might even have a positive effect on Powell's chances if Powell's got a ceiling problem and a strong third party lowers the number necessary to win.
Buchanan threatened to run for the Taxpayers' Party if Dole selected a pro-choice VP in 1996, so (unless he was bluffing) he would certainly run third party if the presidential nominee was pro-choice, not to mention an overall liberal. Not sure how much support he would get. On one hand, he has high name recognition and a pissed off Republican base on his side, but on the other, his performance in 2000 was absolutely pitiful, which doesn't speak well for him in 1996.
 
He idolized weird people, and late in life idolized Hugo Chavez.
Foreign policy though wasn't really a big concern in 1996. Kemp's sunny optimism probably wouldn't go over poorly, and he probably would try to paint himself as the advocate of NATO expansion into Eastern Europe. His issue lies more in that the Democrats could easily scaremonger about entitlement reform against him and his immigration and crime views were well outside the mainstream, let alone the Republican mainstream.
 
Top