Deleted member 180541
Jack Kemp for the Republican nomination. Ann Richards or Mario Cuomo for the Democrats. The Republicans might actually win again.
Jack Kemp for the Republican nomination. Ann Richards or Mario Cuomo for the Democrats. The Republicans might actually win again.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
Wait, Jack Kemp contemplated the Reform party nomination?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)
Yeah.Wait, Jack Kemp contemplated the Reform party nomination?
Wow, never heard of that.
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.Bush was expected to win the 1992 election handily after the Gulf War sent his approvals skyrocketing. But the economy and being portrayed (truthfully or not) as being "out of touch" meant ultimately lost to Bill Clinton.
But what if the economy did better and Bush had a better campaign staff who got him to avoid some of his worst gaffes (the supermarket scanner, that awful debate with Clinton). He squeaks by with a narrow victory.
If Bush won, who would be the nominees in 1996? Logically Bush's VP Dan Quayle should be the GOP nom but he was kinda a joke so maybe he "chooses not to run" and leaves the field open? In Otl 1996 the GOP didn't seriously try to challenge Clinton for the presidency and instead spent effort on preserving congressional majority, Bob dole was just kind of lamb led to the slaughter. Who would they run if they were in a "serious" election? What about the Democrats?
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.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.
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.Would the likelihood of a Bush victory in 1992 butterfly away George W. Bush's victory over Ann Richards in 1994? If so, what's the likelihood of Governor Richards making a bid for the nomination in 1996?