This. My bad for not clarifying it and thanks Falcon for posting. As a South Cali denizen I sometimes assume my state is the center of the universe and all know its politics.
Lets us first start with the fact that 187 is code for murder in California penal code. When I first heard of the prop, I thought it was a joke. This was before snopes became a thing and I never heard of Onion, but honestly, what kind of political neophyte would number a proposition that would stir up trouble in California after the one California penal code that everyone in California and many outside it (thanks to rap songs and movies) would know? It is the equivalent to officially dubbing your own Cabinet reshuffle as "Night of the Long Knives" then being confused why everyone makes a face when they hear of it.
I was in Cali when this went down, and the perception of the Republican party changed if not overnight, then within a month, among everyone under 50 and not already a registered Republican. It is hard to overstate how much Prop 187 created a new racial fault line among voters in Cali. And it wasn't even the half-assed measures it proposed, it was the ham-fisted way it went about proposing it and the atmosphere that surrounded it. And Pete Wilson was the one who served as ringmaster during the circus. People reading the Prop now may be confused by all the hoopla it caused, but once again, it wasn't what it said, it was how it was presented in the boonies and cities. The lack of any attempt at dialogue and ugly nativism produced an immediate backlash. '94 California was not some hippie heaven with would-be marchers looking for an excuse to be offended. But 187 energized the dying PC culture at colleges and radicalized normal folks on both sides of the right-left divide.
There are arguments out there that Cali was going liberal at Fed level regardless. But 187 was definitely an important part in making a lot of independents that disliked Democrats give them a second look. It also helped that Clinton was making Dems respectable by showing folks that Dems don't have to be the folks that speak from the heart and then get stomped at elections. Dems could actually win.
If Wilson were the nominee, would he fare well?
I was thinking someone like Cuomo might be the nominee. He probably gets reelected in 1994 considering how much of a squeaker it was. He'd be weak in the south.
Kemp might be a centrist-type figure. He's no economic moderate, but his social stances, racial stances, immigration stances, and pro-labor stances would give him wiggle room. Split the looney right in the primary (cough Buchanan cough) and consolidate leadership around him and he can squeak through.
As for Kemp running mates...
Elizabeth Dole (Woman so she'd represent social change, from a southern state, plenty of experience)
George Voinovich (Governor from a key state, strong record on education and budgets, head of the Midwest Governors Association for a bit)
Carroll Campbell (Governor and Congressman from a southern state, former head of the National Governor's Association, massively popular in his state, brought in BMW to SC)
If the Dems nominate a northeastern liberal in 1996 I could see them losing the south. It says quite a bit that Gore was unable to hold Tennessee in 2000. If the Democrats hold California and the Upper Midwest I think they'd fare well though. Issue is, Kemp was a big critic of Pete Wilson's actions in California so I could see Kemp being competitive there.
If the Democrats keep losing and they have a big internal fight over where to go, would it be possible that they split between the DLC and the Progressives?
Wilson was a one trick pony. Prior to Prop 187, he was headed for defeat in California, and wanted to ride that Prop to victory and burnish his credentials. He was actively seeking to wrap himself up in the mantle of Reagan before that was a thing. I do not know if a party in power for four terms would want to take a chance on such an upstart. He would get a seat at the table and he would lead the conversation on immigration, but would he connect with the Midwest, East and South?
I think Kemp would fare well in the general, but man, would it be hard to get him through the primaries. I like the idea of him watching the right splinter and slipping through, but one of the reasons Buchanan reared his head in '96 was because the Repubs lost '92 and he was speaking for the legitimist right faction of his party that wanted to remove the usurper Clinton from the throne by staying true to the iron values of the past. He would still run without Clinton in the mix, but would his message be received? Would the voters that just sat through four terms of Repub domination want to hear someone saying they can do better if they turn more right wing?
There would be a complacency on the Repub side that would make it easier for an apparatchik who made no waves to slip in, and then be married with a name Repub to balance the ticket. This would not be the time for the fire-bomb-throwing anti-IRS wing to find reception. They would be politely told to wait in the lobby and then their appointment would be rescheduled. Likewise, Forbes would be seen as an unwelcome interloper with his "radical" economic proposals. They would need to find a middle of the road fella. If the Repubs win in '92, there is no Gingrich wave of '94. Oh he would still be elected, but with Bush muddling through, he would have no time for the far-reaching proposals of some little fat man from Georgia who is walking arond with a sloshing can of kerosene looking for a fire. The Dan Q. conundrum would need to be settled, and I can see that being rather painful. He would want to run. He would want Bush to endorse him, and Bush would wrestle with that decision. This is where the fringe candidates might get a chance, before some TTL equivalent of "Buchanan Wins in New Hampshire" would make everyone turn to the safe but winnable choice.
Maybe that's how Kemp gets in? Or Cuomo?
On the VP side, I like the idea of Elizabeth Dole. Or perhaps Colin Powell? in '96, Colin Powell was a man for all seasons for all Repub leaning voters. There were stories he spoke Yiddish circulating among the approving conservative Jewish-Orthodox voters. No, seriously. There were stories like that. Go Google for a laugh.
Turning to the Dems - ouch. I mean, watching Clinton go down in flames in '92 would have been hard to stomach and would have caused a lot of confusion. Clinton's gift in '92 was speaking a centrist message, but being seen as a liberal dreamboat. Without him there, the centrist and left wings would go to war and it would be a mess. I don't think we'd see a split. The American two-party system breaks apart only if something epic occurs. And this would not qualify. But we would see Bill Bradley and Gore gamely trying to appeal to all people and turning off large sections of activists as a result (though Bill would have better credentials due to activist legacy and Gore would be still remembered as the husband of the woman in white gloves that wanted to ban naughty songs), while the Richard Gephardts of the world struggle to get the white working class to see Dems as a winning side worth supporting.
One roll of the dice I think is semi-plausible here, is to send out a legend into one final battle on the Dem side as the children bicker: Ted Kennedy. I know it seems bizarre, but in '96 Ted was old enough to be "forgiven" transgressions of the past and yet young enough to sally forth into the breach. He would have made an easy target for Repub activists, but would not the idea of being the man to stop the Repub domination appeal to a man of his not inconsiderable ego? Could he stomach seeing kids who were getting his autographs before they got elected to Senate running in his place?