Now I know the cliche response is McCain, but let me explain why I don't think it would be him.
My understanding is that when George W. Bush entered the race, he used his family connections to almost immediately line up most of the Republican establishment behind him. This had two effects: First, it sucked all the air (or in this case money) out of the room and killed the chances of many other candidates and potential candidates who might have otherwise competed for the support of those donors (Dan Quayle, Jack Kemp, and Trent Lott, to name just a few). Second, it provoked a backlash against the party bosses trying to turn the process into a coronation for their chosen candidate. John McCain was politically savvy enough to ride this anti-establishment wave from a dark horse polling in single digits, to a victory in the New Hampshire primary and second place in the delegate count.
So if George W. Bush isn't in the race (ignore the why for now), a lot of candidates whose campaigns fizzled out early, or who never entered the race at all, could be strengthened. Jack Kemp for example, was viewed as a strong candidate and was doing quite well in hypothetical polls, but declined to enter the race and instead endorsed Bush. Elizabeth Dole's had been polling second to Bush in OTL before she pulled out due to lack of funds. Dan Quayle probably never would have made a viable candidate due to his gaffes, but without Bush, his support could have been better than it was in OTL. On the other end of the spectrum, the anti-establishment crowd was McCain's bread and butter. With the establishment fractured between several candidates, there won't be such a large backlash against it. Thus McCain's chances seem small unless he pivots from an insurgent "fight-the-power" style campaign to something more traditional.
Anyway, is my analysis flawed? Who do you all think would be the nominee in a world without Bush?
My understanding is that when George W. Bush entered the race, he used his family connections to almost immediately line up most of the Republican establishment behind him. This had two effects: First, it sucked all the air (or in this case money) out of the room and killed the chances of many other candidates and potential candidates who might have otherwise competed for the support of those donors (Dan Quayle, Jack Kemp, and Trent Lott, to name just a few). Second, it provoked a backlash against the party bosses trying to turn the process into a coronation for their chosen candidate. John McCain was politically savvy enough to ride this anti-establishment wave from a dark horse polling in single digits, to a victory in the New Hampshire primary and second place in the delegate count.
So if George W. Bush isn't in the race (ignore the why for now), a lot of candidates whose campaigns fizzled out early, or who never entered the race at all, could be strengthened. Jack Kemp for example, was viewed as a strong candidate and was doing quite well in hypothetical polls, but declined to enter the race and instead endorsed Bush. Elizabeth Dole's had been polling second to Bush in OTL before she pulled out due to lack of funds. Dan Quayle probably never would have made a viable candidate due to his gaffes, but without Bush, his support could have been better than it was in OTL. On the other end of the spectrum, the anti-establishment crowd was McCain's bread and butter. With the establishment fractured between several candidates, there won't be such a large backlash against it. Thus McCain's chances seem small unless he pivots from an insurgent "fight-the-power" style campaign to something more traditional.
Anyway, is my analysis flawed? Who do you all think would be the nominee in a world without Bush?
