Clinton 88

What if Bill Clinton ran four yesrs earlier? With political skills far superior than those of Dukakis and Southern support I can see him winning the.nomination. Even though he would have waged a much better campaign then the Duke in those good economic times Bush wins Reagan's third term. Does this defeat weaken Clinton's credibility for 1992? Does that mean Paul Tsongas wins the nomnation? if so, I think he wins. First there is the bad economy Although he does not win anywhere near as much Southern support, he wins enough Perot voters to do better in the North. if Tsongas wins that means a man who OTL died in 1997, has his job stress increased. He could very well die in office. Then again. have Clinton lose in 88 by a narrow margin or not get the nomination and he probably wins the 1992 nomination and election and nothing changes.
 
He would be crushed, given he would be fighting with Al Gore and Jesse Jackson for the south, which is where he would need to appear strongest. In fact its possible this allows Jackson to carry more states at their expense. Dukakis still becomes the nominee.

This is without even factoring any scandals that might come into play.
 
You can't really lose a presidential general election and be re-nominated four years later. There's only been two exceptions to this rule in the last one hundred years, and this was in a different era, when party bosses controlled the nominations, not bitter primary battles.

If Clinton loses the race in 1988, he stands zero chance of running four years later. Eight years later or more? A sliver of a chance.

Bush proceeds as OTL and the 1992 nominee could be Paul Tsongas, but he's a Massachusetts liberal so it'd be akin to Dukakis OTL.

Then an open round in 1997, most likely between whoever was the runner-up to Tsongas in TTL's 1992 (Jerry Brown perhaps?) and the incumbent Vice President Dan Quayle. Yes, you read that correctly.

Democrats most likely in in 1996 after four terms out of the White House due to party fatigue but at this point things are getting blurry and vague.
 
If clinton won the nomination, then he would easily have defeated bush, seeing how Dukakis blew away a massive lead over the summer and fall of 1988.
 
I think that he could have won and if he'd won in 88 might have governed slightly to the left of OTL since it would have only been two election loses in a row and the Democrats might have been slower to go along with the logic of the DLC. Especially if he won with the same electoral strategy at OTL of winning parts of Appalachia and WWC voters. The Democrats would realize that with the right candidate they didn't need to triangulate.
 
If clinton won the nomination, then he would easily have defeated bush, seeing how Dukakis blew away a massive lead over the summer and fall of 1988.

I misread 'lead' as 'load'.

My sophomoric sense of humor aside, interesting point, but I don't think that's the case. Dukakis didn't lose just because he was Dukakis - Bush had Lee Atwater at his side, and if Lee Atwater can make a silly tank video and management of criminals national issues, I'm sure finding dirt on Bill Clinton, a man who's most second most famous activity was getting blowjobs, will be cakewalk for him - and mind you, Reagan is still seen as a success, so the family values thing holds up much better than it does four years later when the economy is in decline.
 
You can't really lose a presidential general election and be re-nominated four years later. There's only been two exceptions to this rule in the last one hundred years, and this was in a different era, when party bosses controlled the nominations, not bitter primary battles.

If Clinton loses the race in 1988, he stands zero chance of running four years later. Eight years later or more? A sliver of a chance.

If Clinton runs a good scandal free campaign and loses narrowly, he would still have considerable support among Democratic primary voters.
 
If Clinton runs a good scandal free campaign and loses narrowly, he would still have considerable support among Democratic primary voters.
The words 'Bill Clinton' and 'scandal-free' should not be in the same sentence. :p

First off, this depends how narrow Clinton's loss is - are we talking a Florida in 2000 sort of scenario, or a Ford-Carter 1976 scenario, or just a really close popular vote with an electoral landslide?

The fact is, unless Bill Clinton's 1988 loss is comparable to Gore's OTL, it doesn't matter how successful his campaign was. Adlai Stevenson's third run in 1960 was tossed aside despite the Democrats having stronger chances than both of Stevenon's nominations. Richard Nixon waited eight years to stage his comeback. Hubert Humphrey was tossed aside in 1972 after losing a close election to Richard Nixon. Likewise, Ford and his running mate Dole nearly beat Carter four years later, but was only given mild speculation for a second run in 1980, with his former running mate falling behind not only frontrunner Ronald Reagan but CIA Director George H. W. Bush in polls.

And this is all ignoring the fact that Bush had Lee Atwater, a campaign weapon of mass destruction who would exploit any shred of scandal he could find on the bottom of Clinton's shoe. If not for Lee Atwater, then we wouldn't the infamous 'Willie Horton' ad, and thus much less emphasis on crime, hopefully butterflying away the hypothetical rape of Kitty Dukakis being discussed on national television as a debate question - and then without those two embarrassments, Michael Dukakis might actually have gone on to be President of the United States.
 
Clinton running in 1988 would be a disaster for Clinton on so many levels. What says the most about his standing in the Democratic Party at the time was the reception of his 1988 convention address: most of the party insiders panned it as horrible and dismissed him as a serious contender as a result. OTL he took a lot of pleasure from that moment after he won the nomination in '92.
 
Adlai Stevenson's third run in 1960 was tossed aside despite the Democrats having stronger chances than both of Stevenon's nominations. Richard Nixon waited eight years to stage his comeback. Hubert Humphrey was tossed aside in 1972 after losing a close election to Richard Nixon. Likewise, Ford and his running mate Dole nearly beat Carter four years later, but was only given mild speculation for a second run in 1980, with his former running mate falling behind not only frontrunner Ronald Reagan but CIA Director George H. W. Bush in polls.
Those are actually all bad examples.
1. Had Adlai actually tried to take the nomination a third time, he probably would've have gotten it. The sheer enthusiasm displayed for him at the convention OTL scared the hell out of Kennedy.
2. Nixon tried to maneuver himself into become the compromise candidate of a brokered convention in 1964.
3. Humphrey nearly won the nomination in 1972, but McGovern knew the ways of the new primary better (because he had reformed them himself), and narrowly got the nomination.
4. Ford didn't run in 1980, but Anderson and Bush split the left-of-Reagan vote. Had that vote coalesced around a Ford candidacy, a nomination is possible.

And this is all ignoring the fact that Bush had Lee Atwater, a campaign weapon of mass destruction who would exploit any shred of scandal he could find on the bottom of Clinton's shoe. If not for Lee Atwater, then we wouldn't the infamous 'Willie Horton' ad, and thus much less emphasis on crime, hopefully butterflying away the hypothetical rape of Kitty Dukakis being discussed on national television as a debate question - and then without those two embarrassments, Michael Dukakis might actually have gone on to be President of the United States.
Whoa, whoa whoa. Clinton isn't Dukakis. Clinton went out of his way to execute a mentally ill black man just to prove himself immune to the kind of things Atwater would throw his way.

I don't see how he wins the nomination in '88 though, with him having to compete with Gore on his right and Jackson on his left in his native South.
 
Those are actually all bad examples.
1. Had Adlai actually tried to take the nomination a third time, he probably would've have gotten it. The sheer enthusiasm displayed for him at the convention OTL scared the hell out of Kennedy.
2. Nixon tried to maneuver himself into become the compromise candidate of a brokered convention in 1964.
3. Humphrey nearly won the nomination in 1972, but McGovern knew the ways of the new primary better (because he had reformed them himself), and narrowly got the nomination.
4. Ford didn't run in 1980, but Anderson and Bush split the left-of-Reagan vote. Had that vote coalesced around a Ford candidacy, a nomination is possible.
Was aware of Nixon's antics in 1964 and Ford not running in 1980 - I was more so using Dole for the example. I wasn't aware Humphrey performed so strongly in 1972 though, and I'm just plain confused completely on Adlai Stevenson's run in 1960 now.

Whoa, whoa whoa. Clinton isn't Dukakis. Clinton went out of his way to execute a mentally ill black man just to prove himself immune to the kind of things Atwater would throw his way.
I'm not saying Clinton or Dukakis are shitty candidates, I'm just saying (I was under the impression, at least) that Atwater was a highly skilled campaign manager. I always figured he was a major part of the reason Bush won in '88 when Dukakis was winning the polls until fall or so, IIRC. Was Dukakis really the one shooting himself in the foot the whole time?
 
If Clinton loses the race in 1988, he stands zero chance of running four years later.

This is pretty doubtful; it's not like Al Gore committed political suicide by his '88 run. Indeed, if he had run in '92, Clinton may have deferred to the senior man and he could very well have gotten the nomination.

I don't see Clinton in '88 as making much headway, not least because Gore would be running too and with a three-way split in the south, it would be pretty much impossible for him to win, but he's not going to ruin his career if he loses. Expectations are key - nobody would have expected Gore or Clinton to win the nomination that year. If they had been frontrunners and lost, it's a different equation. If anything would finish off Bill, it would be his heightened profile, which would lead to people asking who Bill Clinton is. And the answers, well, we all know what they would be. If anything puts the kibosh on a '92 run, that would be it, not the basic fact of him losing the '88 race.
 
Last edited:
Top