Deleted member 180541
Jack Kemp for the Republican nomination. Ann Richards or Mario Cuomo for the Democrats. The Republicans might actually win again.
George H Bush wins 1992, who do the 2 parties nominate in 1996?
- Thread starter RousseauX
- Start date
Given how long the Republicans have been in office as it stands, I feel like 96 would be the Year the Democrats finally come back to power from nothing else, but malaise.
The whole 96 election would be a very interesting thing to cover.
Republicans:
A fairly nasty fight between Dole and Quayle. It could be nasty enough that someone like Kemp or Wilson could get it instead.
Democrats:
Cuomo probably gets re-elected as New York governor but he never seemed to want the presidency enough. Richards could still lose to W. Bush in Texas if H. W. Bush is still popular. If neither of those run then it's the likes of Gephardt, Gore, Kerry, Biden, Wellstone and a few others. Biden is probably best placed in an ideological sense.
A fairly nasty fight between Dole and Quayle. It could be nasty enough that someone like Kemp or Wilson could get it instead.
Democrats:
Cuomo probably gets re-elected as New York governor but he never seemed to want the presidency enough. Richards could still lose to W. Bush in Texas if H. W. Bush is still popular. If neither of those run then it's the likes of Gephardt, Gore, Kerry, Biden, Wellstone and a few others. Biden is probably best placed in an ideological sense.
Very puzzled by the long-term belief of this forum that the Bush WH, after two terms and going out on a legacy of peace and prosperity, are going to abandon the nomination field to Bush archenemy the Bobster or close friend of the right but not so much the president Dan Quayle.
Nah, they're going to pressure Cheney or Baker to run; and indeed, Cheney vaguely sounded out things IOTL for that contest. Very possible he quits at Defense sometime in '93-'94 and has a twelve month respite and ground-laying period in the runup for the bid.
Cuomo, even assuming he gets re-elected, which I don't think is a given, would be a busted flush; Ann Richards would engender severe reservations amongst the donor community for a fully-winnable, indeed must-winnable race, based on her shoot-from-the-hip style and prior battles with the bottle.
Kemp, incidentally, was not remotely rated by Bush and by '96 IOTL he was very much out of favour on the right. (Which I think would be even more true ITTL) Him being Dole's running mate makes him look a lot more relevant than he actually was. (IOTL he was so out of it he actually considered running for the Reform nomination)
Nah, they're going to pressure Cheney or Baker to run; and indeed, Cheney vaguely sounded out things IOTL for that contest. Very possible he quits at Defense sometime in '93-'94 and has a twelve month respite and ground-laying period in the runup for the bid.
Cuomo, even assuming he gets re-elected, which I don't think is a given, would be a busted flush; Ann Richards would engender severe reservations amongst the donor community for a fully-winnable, indeed must-winnable race, based on her shoot-from-the-hip style and prior battles with the bottle.
Kemp, incidentally, was not remotely rated by Bush and by '96 IOTL he was very much out of favour on the right. (Which I think would be even more true ITTL) Him being Dole's running mate makes him look a lot more relevant than he actually was. (IOTL he was so out of it he actually considered running for the Reform nomination)
Last edited:
Deleted member 180541
Bush would loose against Richards because there would be no Gingrich Revolution in '94. Quayle is a nonentity. Bush and Dole hated each other so he wouldn't get the nomination. Al Gore will not get the nomination because he was on the ticket in '92.
True, but 1992 - 1996 would see a booming economy under Bush so I think the election would be quite competitive. Even without the Gingrich Revolution the GOP will still gains seats in '94. Couple that with the lack of exciting nominees on the Democrat side the Republicans could win.
Looking to the future, even if the GOP nominee looses in 2000 a Democrat is likely to be in office during the 2008 Financial Crisis, which could completely destroy any credibility the party has.
Last edited by a moderator:
1996 would be remember for it weak so to speak presidential candidates if nothing else, or even lukewarm at best.
If the GOP pulls another win then and there,I can't imagine the panic of the Democratic Party in they're just can't find anyone. More so the unprecedented long rule of the GOP from Regan to Bush Senior and whoever wins in 96.
The best example I could give is a Red version of the New Deal coalition you be seeing until the 2000s.
I don't think the 2008 Financial Crisis would be set in stone. I can still see the dot-com bubble bust which may help the Democrats win finally.
Yeah.
The party was moving away from him; he was pro-immigration and opposed to attacks on affirmative action at a time when the post-cold war party was emerging and economics were becoming less relevant while social issues became a bigger factor. He of course started off as the presumed front-runner IOTL immediately after '92 and it slid away pretty quickly from him up until he declared he wouldn't even run in '95.
He was also one of those types who really was not willing to stoop to conquer as far as the nomination went; he wasn't prepared to really put the hours in on fundraising etc, and he wasn't prepared to really pander to the emergent forces in the party. (At one of the major religious right conferences he turned up one year in I think '93 and mostly talked about free trade)
I think there's a lot of reverse special pleading that goes on on here about Gore in this situation, btw. I think he'd be the frontrunner irrespective of whether he was on the ticket or not in '92, though the more dysfunctional and open-to-losing tickets shouldn't feature him.
If Bush is still president by 1996, I would expect Roe v. Wade to be absolutely gone. That said, social issues might actually become really important in a 1996 election held under a good economy — it would be the most important difference between both parties. That probably works to the advantage of a woman running for the Democratic nomination.
Despite a good economy, I think the Democrats narrowly win in 1996. While the Democrats will likely have a crowded field due to everyone that sat 92 out thinking Bush was unbeatable throwing their hat in the ring, a strong nominee will likely emerge, while the GOP primary will likely be a shitshow between Dole and Quayle with a few unknowns briefly running. Said Democrat would likely ride the Dotcom boom to re election in 2000 only for the GOP to ride the fallout and weak recovery from the Dotcom recession in 2004, only to get voted out after one term due to some sort of financial crisis.
I doubt Roe is gone by 1996 in this timeline. I don't see Blackmun, the author of Roe retiring under GHWB who wants to overturn it. He made it to 1999 in our timeline. White retiring probably still happens but he was against Roe, so it doesn't effect the PA v. Casey lineup, even if Bush avoids another Souter.
I expect HW to be extremely popular given the economy. I would expect I large field unless Bush picks an obvious successor (not Quayle he would be too weak). With Bush's popularity and the economy I expect many GOP presidential hopefuls to go for it even many who have no shot. Possible nominees could be Tommy Tompson, James Baker or McCain.
For the Democrats I think Cuomo, although its possible he passes, thinking 2000 would be a better shot.
I don't even think Dubya would run for Governor in 1994 in the event his father is re elected, as IIRC he even said his father's loss was what motivated him to do it. Richards would likely defeat a different Republican in 94 and would be in a good position to run for President or get chosen to be a running mate if she chooses.