If Bush won 1992, would Quayle have been the 1996 nominee?

Something that struck me about the "1996 Quayle Versus Robb" thread. Is it really that guaranteed that Quayle would be the Republican nominee? I mean, sure, he'd be the Vice President and everything, but given that his main claim to fame after 8 years as VP is that he can't spell "potato" is he really guaranteed the party nomination?
 
Not guaranteed, but certainly the front runner. He would face challenges from Bob Dole, Pat Buchanan, Steve Forbes, Lamar Alexander, etc.. But as the incumbent Vice President he would definitely have a sizable advantage.
 
I'm not in any way sure he would have been the nominee actually. Incumbent VPs generally always face strong primary challenges, and never would this be more true of Dan Quayle in 1996.

Quayle would be riding on the back of Bush Snr Republicanism; domestically disinterested, nothing more than tactical plays to social issues, foreign affairs competency. Two huge negatives there in a primary campaign, one minor positive. One positive which would be rendered obselete by the settled foreign situation and Quayle's patent inability to carry it over. Plus, the exhaustion factor of 16 years in the White House. After eight years of Bush snr, social conservatives will be angry as hell. Quayle isn't going to convince the center/left and he's got nothing to show the right - I don't think you'll see the party establishment get behind Quayle in any way like they did with Bush in '88 or Gore in 2000. Quayle could point to the (presumably) good economy if he wins the nomination, but the economy doesn't win you primary votes with evangelicals.

He would have people coming at him from the right, left, up, down, sideways. Unless his campaign is operating at political genius-level, he'll probably lose the nomination, yes, probably to Pat Buchanan. (Or at least, someone equally 'fruity') 1996 consequently has a good chance of being the biggest Democratic landslide since Roosevelt.
 
Last edited:
I was thinking back for comparisons, and I realized that the general situation (President elected, re-elected, his VP is nominated) is rarer than I would have thought off the cuff. I guess Reagan/Bush and Clinton/Gore made me think it was the default situation. But this is the trend in the 20th/21st century

2000/04/08: VP Cheney declines to run.
1992/96/2000: VP Gore is easily nominated. (Loses general)
1980/84/88: VP Bush is nominated, with a few bumps in the road. (Wins general)
1952/56/60: VP Nixon is easily nominated. (Loses general)
1912/16/20: VP Marshall declines to run


So in this scenario, every VP who has vied for the nomination has received it, if he was coming from the same position as Quayle would be in in 1996, however, there's only three attempts, and one of them would be gone in that TL. There's no great precedent set for yielding to the VP, especially given the 1988 election.

Note: I decided not to include 1968 and 1908 even though the sitting VP competed for the nomination (Humphrey winning it and Fairbanks losing to Taft) since both Roosevelt and Johnson were only elected once, even if they served parts of two terms then declined to run.
 
On the whole Quayle would have been in a fairly strong position to get the nomination. As a Conservative he would not have faced a big threat from that wing of the party and it is doubtful that the liberal Republican or the wishy washy moderated would be a real threat. I expect tha Quayle would move away from GHW Bush and try to appeal more toward the Reagan image.

If the economy was in good shpe he might have stood a good chance of winning or would have done no worse than Bob Dole did against Clinton in 1996.
 
If Poppy wins in '92 against Clinton (or, more plausibly, Tsongas) then his leading campaign manager will be considered a God among men in Republican circles.

And in OTL's unsuccessful race that man was James A. Baker III, a very ambitious pol.

Quayle gets pushed aside, much like 2000?
 
Top