DBWI: What if Clinton was not Assassinated 3.0

We know that former Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton suffered the same fate as RFK did in 1968, When he was assassinated on June 5th, 1992 as he won the Democratic primary in Missouri, then George H.W. Bush would go on to win the Presidency over Democratic nominee Jerry Brown

May I ask you my fellow Americans, what would have happend if Clinton didn't get assassinated?
 
Bush's victory in that election in retrospect was kind of a fluke. Bush was by no means a bad President, every indication is that he should have lost had all things been equal. He had faced a primary challenge. The conservatives were bolting because of the 1990 budget deal. And indeed, they didn't really turn out in large numbers. Bush didn't really like campaigning in 1992 from what I've read. He was reelected for one simple reason, Brown's campaign was a disaster. Clinton supporters acted towards him in the way movement conservatives acted towards Bush. Brown's appeal was limited even within the Democratic party. The death of Bill Clinton led to a divided and apathetic democratic party, and that considerably helped Bush's chances for reelection. Also, Brown is somewhat abrasive, and that doesn't really work on the national scene. If Clinton had lived, it's impossible to say where the election would have gone. He might well have won. He had support in the south, where Brown emphatically did not. He was considerably more charismatic and media friendly than either Bush or Brown. On the other hand, there was the Jennifer Flowers problem, and was America really ready for a baby boomer in the White House in 1992? If Clinton wins, perhaps anti-President sentiment means the Republicans actually take control of congress in 1994? I know that sounds out there, but the then minority whip Newt Gingrich managed to create a Republican campaign that did surprisingly well considering the incumbent was a Republican. It's one of the few midterms in which the incumbent's party picked up seats. But anti-incumbent sentiment meant that there was a ceiling to how far Republican gains could go. If Clinton is President, Gingrich might have been Speaker of the House. But perhaps I'm extrapolating too far here. In any case, with a Democratic President the Republican upset of 1994 would have been larger, but there's no telling how large.

1996 is going to be incredibly boring on all sides. I mean, it's going to come down to Bill Clinton and Bob Dole. What would 1996 be like without the Al Gore vs. Mario Cuomo show down on the Democratic side, and the Gingrich vs. Dole vs. Vice President Quayle campaign on the Republican side? Of course, the end result after 16 years was almost inevitable. I mean the Republicans were not going to win even if the economy was better. Plus Bush wasn't exactly popular in 1996.
 
OOC: I worked for Clinton in 1992 and was involved in both the delegate and convention aspects of the campaign. Jerry Brown as nominee following a Clinton assassination in June 1992 is ASB. There was intense bad blood between the two campaigns and the Clinton staff and delegates would never have gone for Brown; rather, they would have intensely worked against him. The nomination would have, in all likelihood, been settled at the convention and I doubt that the nominee would have been one of the candidates who competed in the primaries, such as Tsongas or Kerrey.
 
OOC: I worked for Clinton in 1992 and was involved in both the delegate and convention aspects of the campaign. Jerry Brown as nominee following a Clinton assassination in June 1992 is ASB. There was intense bad blood between the two campaigns and the Clinton staff and delegates would never have gone for Brown; rather, they would have intensely worked against him. The nomination would have, in all likelihood, been settled at the convention and I doubt that the nominee would have been one of the candidates who competed in the primaries, such as Tsongas or Kerrey.



OOC: Well if Clinton dies, someone has to get the Democratic nomination? right?
 
OOC: I worked for Clinton in 1992 and was involved in both the delegate and convention aspects of the campaign. Jerry Brown as nominee following a Clinton assassination in June 1992 is ASB. There was intense bad blood between the two campaigns and the Clinton staff and delegates would never have gone for Brown; rather, they would have intensely worked against him. The nomination would have, in all likelihood, been settled at the convention and I doubt that the nominee would have been one of the candidates who competed in the primaries, such as Tsongas or Kerrey.

OCC: Unlikely, but not ASB. Tsongas or Kerry might have indeed been the convention's compromise ("brokered") candidate if the deadlock you suggest Apollo-20 had come to pass; however a Brown victory at the convention is plausable. Also, though it doesn't matter since he lost, I suggest that in this DBWI we consider Tsongas to have been Brown's 1992 running mate. BTW, I voted for Tsongas in the 1992 Ohio primary.


IC: I wonder whether the questions that were raised during the campaign about of possible conflict of interest regarding the Goverrnor & Mrs Clinton's association with the Rose Law Firm would have dogged Clinton during his tenure in office? Additionally, I remember Bill Clinton making a statement, and I can't remember the exact quote, that made it sound like his wife was going to be deeply involved in policy and decision making - kind of a co-president. I wounder how that would have gone over, within the Washington establishment, among the president's (Clinton's) opponants, and with the public in general?
 
OCC: Unlikely, but not ASB. Tsongas or Kerry might have indeed been the convention's compromise ("brokered") candidate if the deadlock you suggest Apollo-20 had come to pass; however a Brown victory at the convention is plausable. Also, though it doesn't matter since he lost, I suggest that in this DBWI we consider Tsongas to have been Brown's 1992 running mate. BTW, I voted for Tsongas in the 1992 Ohio primary.


IC: I wonder whether the questions that were raised during the campaign about of possible conflict of interest regarding the Goverrnor & Mrs Clinton's association with the Rose Law Firm would have dogged Clinton during his tenure in office? Additionally, I remember Bill Clinton making a statement, and I can't remember the exact quote, that made it sound like his wife was going to be deeply involved in policy and decision making - kind of a co-president. I wounder how that would have gone over, within the Washington establishment, among the president's (Clinton's) opponants, and with the public in general?

OOC: The enmity between the Clinton and Brown people was intense. Those of us in the Clinton camp just detested Brown; the prevailing view was that he took some cheap shots at us during debates and was, simply put, an oddball. I cannot imagine Hillary, who was the target of a few of Brown's attacks, standing by quietly as the party nominated the man after her husband's death. In fact, I suspect that she would have, as most of us would have, actively worked to ensure that he was not the nominee. Hillary's opinion would have carried weight with the Clinton delegates and Brown would have been hurt politically by the fact that he was beaten by Clinton in his own state's primary on June 2. This last fact simply made Brown politically untenable as a nominee, even if the enmity between the campaigns was less intense.
 
IC: I wonder whether the questions that were raised during the campaign about of possible conflict of interest regarding the Goverrnor & Mrs Clinton's association with the Rose Law Firm would have dogged Clinton during his tenure in office? Additionally, I remember Bill Clinton making a statement, and I can't remember the exact quote, that made it sound like his wife was going to be deeply involved in policy and decision making - kind of a co-president. I wounder how that would have gone over, within the Washington establishment, among the president's (Clinton's) opponants, and with the public in general?

For your first question, call me cynical, but I don't think the New York Times and CNN would care about the Rose Law Firm questions, because of the D after Clinton's name. I bet Rush Limbaugh would talk about it, though.

As for the second question, aren't there anti-nepotism laws that would stop her from having some kind of official role in government? So you're thinking about some kind of unofficial position? That in and of itself might be an issue. An elected official is directly accountable, and an appointed official is accountable through the President who appoints him. If Hillary Clinton would take some major policy position, then she has to be ready to be attacked like any other politician. I mean, I couldn't see any reasonable person attack Barbara Bush, but she's not doing anything substantive or controversial. Hillary Clinton couldn't expect that same kind of deference.

I'm curious, what kind of policy issues would Hillary Clinton get involved in? She was just a lawyer, without any major policy experience, right? The only issue for which she would be experienced would be some kind of legal reform, but that's not a policy goal of the Democrats.
 
Top