If Dole won in 1996, who would have run in 2000?

In the unlikely event Dole wins in 1996, I think he'll run again in 2000. If it's anything like Clinton's OTL second term, there's peace and prosperity, he already (in this TL) beat the age issue in 1996, and given that he's still alive in OTL in 2018, his health can't be that bad. And what modern president has retired voluntarily after one term? (You may say LBJ, but he had served more than one term, and was facing a hard renomination as well as re-election fight.)

Dole, btw, had considered a single term pledge in 1996 (partly to entice Colin Powell to be his running mate) but decided against it.
 
In the unlikely event Dole wins in 1996, I think he'll run again in 2000. If it's anything like Clinton's OTL second term, there's peace and prosperity, he already (in this TL) beat the age issue in 1996, and given that he's still alive in OTL in 2018, his health can't be that bad. And what modern president has retired voluntarily after one term? (You may say LBJ, but he had served more than one term, and was facing a hard renomination as well as re-election fight.)

Dole, btw, had considered a single term pledge in 1996 (partly to entice Colin Powell to be his running mate) but decided against it.

Dole-Powell might have actually been a strong enough ticket to beat Clinton - especially with a one term pledge. Powell was the only Republican who in exit polls beat Clinton. Dole would likely be the factor dragging the ticket down, but a one-term pledge would be a pretty disruptive declaration I think. For the GOP to win in 1996, they'd need to run a very very heterodox campaign, but Dole doesn't seem like the sort to do it as he's too old-school (no pun intended).
 
I do not think a Dole-Powell ticket would have any chance, not only because historically the vice-presidential choice seems to make very little difference to voters (if it did, Dukakis-Benstsen would have defeated Bush-Quayle [1]) but also because Pat Buchanan threatened to bolt and lead a right-wing third party if Powell were to be nominated even as vice-president. (To be sure, Buchanan did very poorly when he led a third party in 2000--but that was against a GW Bush/Cheney ticket which was quite acceptable to most conservative Republicans, especially evangelicals.)

[1] "Polls taken every four years asking if the selection of a particular running mate or a type of running mate (a black, for example, or a woman) would make the respondent more or less likely to vote for either ticket, the invariable consensus choice is that it "doesn't make much difference." Even in 1988, 64 percent of voters said that about Quayle. Only 5 percent of those who voted for Dukakis gave Quayle as an explanation." http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...minute/2000/06/nobody_votes_for_the_veep.html
 
The 1996 VPs will likely run in 2000.

Gore would potentially be a little less stronger with less Clinton fatigue. But then it's not his nomination on a silver platter like in 2000. No reason John Kerry won't jump in, and even Howard Dean's record is pretty well established by 2000. In fact, if the Republicans win in 1996 we might get the left-ish backlash seen against Bush a few cycles early, prompting the Dems for a Dean-like campaign. OTOH, the outrage he embodied isn't likely to be as much of a factor in a relatively quiet Dole presidency.

Clark and Edwards aren't in a position to run in 2000. Bradley might once again take a stab if he feels his issues aren't being spoken to, but his strength IOTL was his contrast to Gore; he loses that in a more crowded field. Depending on whether or not Gore can keep their loyalties for four years, Gephardt and/or Dodd might enter the fray. Carol Moseley Braun got some juice from a crowded field in 2004 and she's even a bit more relevant in 2000, considering she'd still be a sitting senator ITTL. If the field is crowded enough, Sharpton (maybe even Jackson at this point) would certainly jump in.

In the end I'm not sure if Gore can pull it off, especially if some of these politicians have made a name for themselves fighting the Dole administration on the front lines of Congress. He's got a chance, but Kerry beats him in gravitas, and no Clinton fatigue also means smaller Clinton coattails.

If Dole's making a one-term pledge, the party is going to be VERY interested in his VP choice. He's functionally nominating a successor and there will be very little real competition for the nomination. I don't care what Pat Buchanan says, conservatives are not going to bail on a Dole/Powell ticket or a Dole/Whoever ticket. There might be some angry lobbying from the right of the party and a certain lack of cooperation with the leadership, but we already know what that looks like- it looks like what we have today, not a third party.

So who looks good in 1996? Well, Powell, as mentioned. Probably not Kemp. Honestly W is a really good-looking choice in 1996. Four years to groom him on the national scene, no history of gaffs as yet, solid conservative credentials. Maybe a bit of Bush fatigue remaining in 96, but he's the second half of the ticket, nobody much cares. And by 2000 we know people were willing to consider him.

There are a host of other possible Republicans with decent charisma in their 50s that might be deemed acceptable to the RNC: Tommy Thompson, Carroll Campbell, maybe even Cheney. I doubt McCain would be deemed acceptable, but he might pull a Bradley and run in 2000 just to make a point.

Of course if there's no one-term pledge, Dole runs again.

The winner wins on the fundamentals in this race, it really could be either party. If things go roughly as per OTL, no reason why the GOP can't use the incumbency advantage to pull off another unenthusiastic win. However if a GOP entirely in charge of Congress from 97-99 pisses off the electorate and a Democratic wave smashes down, momentum is clearly with the Dems.
 
The 1996 VPs will likely run in 2000.

Gore would potentially be a little less stronger with less Clinton fatigue. But then it's not his nomination on a silver platter like in 2000. No reason John Kerry won't jump in, and even Howard Dean's record is pretty well established by 2000. In fact, if the Republicans win in 1996 we might get the left-ish backlash seen against Bush a few cycles early, prompting the Dems for a Dean-like campaign. OTOH, the outrage he embodied isn't likely to be as much of a factor in a relatively quiet Dole presidency.

Clark and Edwards aren't in a position to run in 2000. Bradley might once again take a stab if he feels his issues aren't being spoken to, but his strength IOTL was his contrast to Gore; he loses that in a more crowded field. Depending on whether or not Gore can keep their loyalties for four years, Gephardt and/or Dodd might enter the fray. Carol Moseley Braun got some juice from a crowded field in 2004 and she's even a bit more relevant in 2000, considering she'd still be a sitting senator ITTL. If the field is crowded enough, Sharpton (maybe even Jackson at this point) would certainly jump in.

In the end I'm not sure if Gore can pull it off, especially if some of these politicians have made a name for themselves fighting the Dole administration on the front lines of Congress. He's got a chance, but Kerry beats him in gravitas, and no Clinton fatigue also means smaller Clinton coattails.

If Dole's making a one-term pledge, the party is going to be VERY interested in his VP choice. He's functionally nominating a successor and there will be very little real competition for the nomination. I don't care what Pat Buchanan says, conservatives are not going to bail on a Dole/Powell ticket or a Dole/Whoever ticket. There might be some angry lobbying from the right of the party and a certain lack of cooperation with the leadership, but we already know what that looks like- it looks like what we have today, not a third party.

So who looks good in 1996? Well, Powell, as mentioned. Probably not Kemp. Honestly W is a really good-looking choice in 1996. Four years to groom him on the national scene, no history of gaffs as yet, solid conservative credentials. Maybe a bit of Bush fatigue remaining in 96, but he's the second half of the ticket, nobody much cares. And by 2000 we know people were willing to consider him.

There are a host of other possible Republicans with decent charisma in their 50s that might be deemed acceptable to the RNC: Tommy Thompson, Carroll Campbell, maybe even Cheney. I doubt McCain would be deemed acceptable, but he might pull a Bradley and run in 2000 just to make a point.

Of course if there's no one-term pledge, Dole runs again.

The winner wins on the fundamentals in this race, it really could be either party. If things go roughly as per OTL, no reason why the GOP can't use the incumbency advantage to pull off another unenthusiastic win. However if a GOP entirely in charge of Congress from 97-99 pisses off the electorate and a Democratic wave smashes down, momentum is clearly with the Dems.
I wonder if Dole winning in 1996 would be seen as an affirmation of "tea party conservatism", and if this would prevent "compassionate conservatism" and "McCain the maverick" from taking off.
 
I wonder if Dole winning in 1996 would be seen as an affirmation of "tea party conservatism", and if this would prevent "compassionate conservatism" and "McCain the maverick" from taking off.

I don't know if I would call Dole a real Tea Party guy. He seemed perfectly willing to negotiate with Democrats on most issues. While his social politics were pretty much strictly conservative by today's standards, it's worth keeping in mind how much migration there's been since even just the 1990s on various social issues. If anything I'd call Dole an establishment conservative, with an emphasis on maintaining a functioning state that the Tea Party movement eschews.

Still, you have a point about how the party (and conservatism) evolves from a win in 1996. Unfortunately I have such a blank when it comes to perceiving what a Dole presidency looks like that I can't really begin to guess. Time for research!
 
I don't know if I would call Dole a real Tea Party guy. He seemed perfectly willing to negotiate with Democrats on most issues. While his social politics were pretty much strictly conservative by today's standards, it's worth keeping in mind how much migration there's been since even just the 1990s on various social issues. If anything I'd call Dole an establishment conservative, with an emphasis on maintaining a functioning state that the Tea Party movement eschews.
I wasn't saying that Dole himself was a Tea Partier, but rather that he ran on a Tea Party platform in 1996. Part of his 1996 platform was abolishing the Department of Education.
 

samcster94

Banned
I wasn't saying that Dole himself was a Tea Partier, but rather that he ran on a Tea Party platform in 1996. Part of his 1996 platform was abolishing the Department of Education.
The 90's polarization was much more limited and would see calm compared to OTL 2018. Dole's social views wouldn't be too out of place for the 90's though. To get that win, have Bill Clinton caught for rape or something.
 
Gore would presumably still be the heavy favourite for the Democratic nomination, although he'd be a tad dented by his association with a one-term administration a la Mondale. Bradley would still run, as would perhaps Wellstone, Gephardt, Biden, Kerry and Dodd. Could have ended up as a close-run thing between Gore and Wellstone (Wellstone being the most charismatic of the not-Gore candidates).

Powell has probably never really been keen on running for president. Field would have probably been similar to OTL.
 
Gore would presumably still be the heavy favourite for the Democratic nomination, although he'd be a tad dented by his association with a one-term administration a la Mondale. Bradley would still run, as would perhaps Wellstone, Gephardt, Biden, Kerry and Dodd. Could have ended up as a close-run thing between Gore and Wellstone (Wellstone being the most charismatic of the not-Gore candidates).

Powell has probably never really been keen on running for president. Field would have probably been similar to OTL.

My understanding is that the one not so keen is Mrs. Powell.

Biden's a really good point. And his brand of "dagnabbit!" left-of-center orneriness might be just the right mood for a Democratic Party that's angry at having lost but not really morally outraged the way they were by OTL 2004.

I'm usually not a Wellstone booster, but he's a solid choice to stand out in this field. He's also likely to do well in Iowa and not too badly in New Hampshire.
 
The over arching issue that I see is POD. The only party to lose after just one term as president in over 100 years was Carter/Democrats. Notice I said party. While there have been a few single term presidents, the party that that comes in to power usually stays in power for at least 8 years if not more.

So Clinton losing in 1996 is a stretch without a major POD. However, if something weird happens and he does, than Dole losing in 2000 is even more off the mark. Unless Dole has a one term pledge, even then I feel that whomever his VP is will be the next president.
 
I don't know if I would call Dole a real Tea Party guy. He seemed perfectly willing to negotiate with Democrats on most issues. While his social politics were pretty much strictly conservative by today's standards, it's worth keeping in mind how much migration there's been since even just the 1990s on various social issues. If anything I'd call Dole an establishment conservative, with an emphasis on maintaining a functioning state that the Tea Party movement eschews.

Still, you have a point about how the party (and conservatism) evolves from a win in 1996. Unfortunately I have such a blank when it comes to perceiving what a Dole presidency looks like that I can't really begin to guess. Time for research!
I get the impression that Dole was Romney's domestic policies + McCain's foreign policies.

One wonders how a Dole victory would effect Dubya's and McCain's careers and platforms. Would Dole abolish the Department of Education? Would Dubya give up on No Child Left Behind?
 
A VP Powell essentially on hand to run for President would be a boon in two big areas - defense and terrorism.

I see the military taken much better care of than it was under Clinton, so god forbid, 9/11 still happens, it's much more ready to wage war, and Powell would have the makings of a damned good wartime President if he was in the Oval Office during 9/11.

That said, maybe with Clinton out of the White House, those warnings about Bin Laden get more attention - maybe we take up one of those Sudanese offers for his head on a plate, and ITTL, Bin Laden dies in the Sudan, instead of becoming a boogeyman plotting from the mountains of Afghanistan.
 
Top