Bob Dole does not run in 1996

He idolized weird people, and late in life idolized Hugo Chavez.

The Chavez thing came later, though. In 1996, his chief vulnerability was that, as David Frum notes, he "had no appetite for the conservative issues of the 1990s—welfare reform, budget-balancing, crime control—and even less for the confrontational style of the new Republican majority in Congress. Kemp endorsed the 1994 assault-weapons ban and opposed Proposition 187, the California voter initiative to deny Medicaid and other benefits to recent immigrants. By 1995, he had been eclipsed by Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, and other new conservative leaders." https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/jack-kemp-legacy/410152/

Which is not to deny that Kemp had some odd ideas in the mid-1990's--such as his admiration for Louis Farrakhan. I suspect most of them came from Jude Wanniski...
 

samcster94

Banned
The Chavez thing came later, though. In 1996, his chief vulnerability was that, as David Frum notes, he "had no appetite for the conservative issues of the 1990s—welfare reform, budget-balancing, crime control—and even less for the confrontational style of the new Republican majority in Congress. Kemp endorsed the 1994 assault-weapons ban and opposed Proposition 187, the California voter initiative to deny Medicaid and other benefits to recent immigrants. By 1995, he had been eclipsed by Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, and other new conservative leaders." https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/jack-kemp-legacy/410152/

Which is not to deny that Kemp had some odd ideas in the mid-1990's--such as his admiration for Louis Farrakhan. I suspect most of them came from Jude Wanniski...
I know, he wasn't elected yet.
 
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.


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.


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.

You might be right about how Republicans react to Powell. I can't really imagine the enthusiasm gap between Powell and Clinton is greater than that between Dole and Clinton, though. On the whole I think there are a lot more places where he can pick up votes than where he loses them. That's not to downplay the possibility of a conservative defection, and so I doubt he could pick Arlen Specter or the like. More likely the conservative establishment hand-picks a charismatic, young, doctrinaire successor to give their man a boost for 2000. No one springs to mind, but there must be someone.

I also think you might underestimate his ability to swing a hefty percentage African Americans away from the Democrats given the right circumstances. Jackson and Clinton were not exactly copacetic; something could happen. It definitely hinges upon the kind of campaign Powell is allowed to run. But let's say he's able to jumpstart something like W's 2000 campaign four years earlier. Compassionate conservatism is pretty soft and undefinable, a cipher for what the voter wants it to mean. And Cosby-style "pull your pants up" paternalism played a lot better in the African American community in the 1990s.

Then there's the extent to which conservatives abandon him...I expect he'll lose a noticeable amount. Mitigating this, there are correlations between partisanship and ideology that leave true-believing registered party members on both sides more likely to vote for a candidate with the right letter next to their name no matter the candidate's ideological rigor.

Finally, we haven't really talked about what could go wrong for Clinton in an alternate timeline. I think there's enough there to make a Powell presidency at least believable.
 
The most interesting choice would've been Colin Powell, with all the caveats about getting him to run in the first place.
There was movement to award Powell a fifth star post-Gulf War whilst he was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff but it was supposedly blocked by the Clinton transition team after the 1996 presidential election to head off any potential future competition. The main problem, as mentioned in the thread I started about it, was that his wife was dead set against a political career.
 
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.

I completely agree- to me Powell would've been the GOP's Wesley Clark. People forget how throughout 2003 tons of Democrats thought he was the absolute dream candidate and then when he ran he was a complete dud.
 
The GOP was fairly risk-adverse back then, so I suspect they'd end up with another establishment-blessed candidate. Presuming nobody jumped into the race as a result of Dole not running, it feels like they'd eventually coalesce around Alexander, who probably would lose by about the same margin as Dole did IOTL. Buchanan and Forbes don't gain appreciably in support, because both had major flaws that served as rate-limiters. Of course, a big factor would be who Dole endorses, because that's going to carry a lot of weight (not enough to get Dornan or Morry Taylor into contention, but still).

The wild-card candidate that would emerge in Dole's absence would be Gingrich, I think; if a prominent member of the GOP leadership runs, they get the lion's share of endorsements and fundraising, and Gingrich was more so than Dole positioned as Clinton's rival. I don't know if it's enough to make a race of it, but it's certainly possible.
 
The GOP was fairly risk-adverse back then, so I suspect they'd end up with another establishment-blessed candidate. Presuming nobody jumped into the race as a result of Dole not running, it feels like they'd eventually coalesce around Alexander, who probably would lose by about the same margin as Dole did IOTL. Buchanan and Forbes don't gain appreciably in support, because both had major flaws that served as rate-limiters. Of course, a big factor would be who Dole endorses, because that's going to carry a lot of weight (not enough to get Dornan or Morry Taylor into contention, but still).

The wild-card candidate that would emerge in Dole's absence would be Gingrich, I think; if a prominent member of the GOP leadership runs, they get the lion's share of endorsements and fundraising, and Gingrich was more so than Dole positioned as Clinton's rival. I don't know if it's enough to make a race of it, but it's certainly possible.
If Gingrich ended up running and ended up getting nominated, there's a good chance he'd do worse than Dole, especially if the Government shutdown still happens.
 
I completely agree- to me Powell would've been the GOP's Wesley Clark. People forget how throughout 2003 tons of Democrats thought he was the absolute dream candidate and then when he ran he was a complete dud.

Is there any reason to compare Powell with Clark other than their shared military background? Clark's public persona bears little resemblance to Powell's. While not a firebrand by any stretch, we've got plenty of evidence that Powell is a competent speaker with a folksy demeanor, capable of handling press conferences, great with small groups, and able to deal with large crowds in at least an unflustered, professional way. He's not a Clinton, it's true. But everyone I've ever met who has spoken to him has come away with the impression that this was an intelligent and capable man you could put your trust in.

Clark was really just an idea, talked up before he had enough real exposure and let loose on the trail only to reveal his uneven qualities.

True, in 1996 Republicans wouldn't have had all the information we have about Powell, but it's baffling to ignore what we know.

And yes, his wife's attitude would certainly have to be mixed in with the POD. Or if you want to be grizzly about it Powell's need for distraction in the wake of a terrible accident that cost him the love of his life could be both a good propellant and a winning campaign narrative. And now I feel horrible.
 
My two cents here, if there was no Dole, there would have been a Stop Buchanan candidate and someone would have been dragooned to take the spot. Bob Dole was not a liked choice by Repub power brokers... until Buchanan won in New Hampshire. When that happened, I remember all the mainstream Repub magazines having think pieces on how this is a disaster for Repubs and how it will destroy the respectability of the party and how Dole is the one they must rally around. Coming on the heels of moderate Repubs cottoning on that Pete Wilson wiped out support for statewide and Fed Repub candidate in California for a generation, it would have been too much.

This was not 2016. It was 1996. Buchanan was seen by a lot of mainstream Repubs as absolutely unqualified to hold the highest office in the land due to his views on WW2 and etc. Excluding Buchanan from the top spot and letting him run as an indy would not have splintered the Repub Party (modern day GOP does not do schisms, it grits its teeth and gets on with the job of winning and then disembowels dissidents), but letting Buchanan carry the GOP banner in an election for the White House... that would be as close to civil war as GOP would have come. He would have been stopped by the powers that be. Whether Dan Quayle would have been deputized, or if some utter nonentity I cannot think off the top of my would have been sent off to do battle, armed with money, media support and glowing editorials, I am not sure. But there would have been a Buchanan Buster GOP candidate.
 
Top