If Al Gore was nominated in 1988 and lost, who would be nominated in 1992?

If Al Gore was nominated in 1988 and lost to the father of his infamous OTL opponent, what would the 1992 Democratic primaries be like?
 
Probably no different. Unless the lack of the Dukakis disaster four years prior is enough to push Cuomo to run in 1992, as he prepared to do before backing out at literally the last minute, then Clinton is still nominated and he still wins the election. Obviously his running mate wouldn't be Gore, rather it might be Bob Graham.
 
Probably no different. Unless the lack of the Dukakis disaster four years prior is enough to push Cuomo to run in 1992, as he prepared to do before backing out at literally the last minute, then Clinton is still nominated and he still wins the election. Obviously his running mate wouldn't be Gore, rather it might be Bob Graham.
Would Clinton still execute Ricky Ray Rector? Would he still promise to "end welfare as we know it"?
 
Would Clinton still execute Ricky Ray Rector? Would he still promise to "end welfare as we know it"?

Why not? Gore didn't run in 1992 in OTL, and he probably wouldn't in this ATL if he blows a race the Dems expected to win in 1988. So I don't see how any of Clinton's actions would be impacted aside from his choice of a VP.
 
Why not? Gore didn't run in 1992 in OTL, and he probably wouldn't in this ATL if he blows a race the Dems expected to win in 1988. So I don't see how any of Clinton's actions would be impacted aside from his choice of a VP.
You are missing the key appeal of Clinton in 1992. Clinton's argument was that only a relatively conservative southern democrat could win (just look at what happened in 1988 when a northeastern liberal had won). If Gore had lost Clinton's whole argument evaporates. I am skeptical if this causes Cuomo to run. I suppose a further question is what POD causes Gore to win? After all he was not the runner up in 1988.
 
I suppose a further question is what POD causes Gore to win? After all he was not the runner up in 1988.

The problem with Gore is he just isn't a strong enough candidate to win in 1988: he's a poor campaigner, arguably too young for the presidency (only 39), he doesn't stand that much of a chance of beating Gephardt in Iowa or Dukakis in New Hampshire, and he'd going up against the more popular Jackson in his own region of the South. Gore came a distant third in 1988; I can only see him winning under the extremely unlikely conditions that allowed Clinton to win in 1992 - every leading Democrat backs out of the race, and his only serious opposition comes in the form of unpopular and inept candidates like Brown and Tsongas. But since 1988 was a year that initially seemed to favor the Democrats (Iran-Contra, stock market crash, etc) as opposed to 1992 when everybody expected Bush to win, I find this extremely unlikely and I don't see how Gore can realistically win the nomination in 1988.
 
I'll disagree with both premises of this thread: Gore wasn't a realistic candidate for the nomination, but if he'd somehow obtained it, I'd put him odds-on against Bush. (One of the possibilities Atwater was terrified about, I think partially justifiably so, was a generational change argument)
 
Top