Have we ever considered a scenario where Bill Clinton chooses former Arizona Governor Bruce Babbitt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Babbitt as his running mate in 1992 in order to appeal to westerners and environmentalists? The ticket may lose a couple of southern states Clinton-Gore carried in OTL but could make up for it in the West--indeed in OTL Clinton came within two points of carrying Arizona in 1992 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992 (and did carry it in 1996).

That Babbitt was considered is indicated by this Newsweek article: "BY THEN, THE JOB OF PICKING a running mate was well underway. Clinton had named a search team: Warren Christopher, a veteran Democratic wise man; Madeleine Kunin, the former governor of Vermont, and Vernon Jordan, a Washington lawyer and civil-rights advocate. There would be no unseemly public procession of candidates to be vetted, Clinton told them; he didn't want what he called 'the Noah's Ark routine.' By late April the scouts had worked up a list of about 40 contenders. During a two-hour meeting in Tallahassee, Fla., Clinton winnowed the names down to Gov. Barbara Roberts of Oregon; Sens. Al Gore of Tennessee, Bob Graham of Florida, John Kerry of Massachusetts, Sam Nunn of Georgia, Bill Bradley of New Jersey and Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia; Indiana Congressman Lee Hamilton; Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Colin Powell; Maynard Jackson, mayor of Atlanta; John Sculley, head of Apple Computer Inc.; Bruce Babbitt, the environmentalist former governor of Arizona, and Bill Moyers, the broadcast journalist...." http://www.newsweek.com/manhattan-project-1992-199740

Would Babbitt be a plausible candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2000?
 
It's plausible.
The problem, as I understand it, is that Bruce Babbitt apparently has very little charisma. Not a problem as a VP, but he might run into some roadblocks on the way to the nomination. He'd probably lose by a wider margin than Gore, in my opinion.
 
It's plausible.
The problem, as I understand it, is that Bruce Babbitt apparently has very little charisma. Not a problem as a VP, but he might run into some roadblocks on the way to the nomination. He'd probably lose by a wider margin than Gore, in my opinion.

Gore wasn't exactly Mr. Charisma himself, though.
 
Gore wasn't exactly Mr. Charisma himself, though.
True, although I tend to think that much of his reputation for being "wooden" is overblown. Plus which, Gore was able to carry Southern states that Babbitt couldn't, and likely wouldn't compensate for in the West.
On the subject of Babbitt's charisma, here's an amusing quote:
"I thought I wasn't going to tell any jokes. But then I thought of Bruce Babbitt. God love him, the only time I have charisma is when I stand up next to Bruce Babbitt. To be called dull by him is like being called forgetful by Ronald Reagan."
-Bill Bradley
 
True, although I tend to think that much of his reputation for being "wooden" is overblown. Plus which, Gore was able to carry Southern states that Babbitt couldn't, and likely wouldn't compensate for in the West.
On the subject of Babbitt's charisma, here's an amusing quote:
"I thought I wasn't going to tell any jokes. But then I thought of Bruce Babbitt. God love him, the only time I have charisma is when I stand up next to Bruce Babbitt. To be called dull by him is like being called forgetful by Ronald Reagan."
-Bill Bradley

Gore didn't win any southern states in 2000 though. Whereas Babbitt would flip the election by winning Arizona, Colorado, and/or Nevada, which I think he would in this scenario.

Either way though, I imagine the election is similarly close as it was IOTL, given that the economy was doing well and (if I remember correctly) the gap between Bush and Gore IOTL was mostly narrowed thanks to repeated problems on Bush's part, which I'm not sure would be butterflied.
 
Gore didn't win any southern states in 2000 though. Whereas Babbitt would flip the election by winning Arizona, Colorado, and/or Nevada, which I think he would in this scenario.

Either way though, I imagine the election is similarly close as it was IOTL, given that the economy was doing well and (if I remember correctly) the gap between Bush and Gore IOTL was mostly narrowed thanks to repeated problems on Bush's part, which I'm not sure would be butterflied.
You're right - for some reason, I thought Gore won AR and TN.
 
Top