Joe Purcell defeats Bill Clinton

Who was Joe Purcell, you ask? Well, in 1982 he was the former Lieutenant Governor of Arkansas and was running for Governor in the Democratic primary, against former Governor Bill Clinton and state Attorney General Jim Guy Tucker. As of 1982 Arkansas was still basically a Democratic state in non-presidential elections--even in presidential elections Carter only lost it very narrowly in 1980, and would doubtless have won it had he not decided to house Cuban refugees in Fort Chaffee, Arkansas--so whoever won the Democratic primary was likely to beat Republican Governor Frank White in the general election. (White had narrowly defeated Clinton in 1980; again the Cuban refugee situation almost certainly made the difference. By 1982 he was in serious trouble for raising costs for prescriptions for the elderly, allowing utility rate increases and then getting a free trip on the utility's airplane, etc. He also got bad publicity nationwide for signing a bill requiring "balanced treatment" for evolution and creation, though that probably didn't hurt him locally.) Purcell finished second in the first round of the primary: Clinton got 42 percent of the vote to Purcell's 29% and Tucker's 23%.

One would think that Clinton, having gotten the most votes, would be favored in the runoff. But it doesn't always work that way in southern runoffs. Quite often all the losing candidates in the first round gang up to support the runner-up against the candidate who finished first. In any event, the runoff was fairly close: Clinton defeated Purcell 239,961 (53.76%) to 206,358 (46.24%) [1] Former Clinton aide David Watkins later said:

"Joe Purcell was second and we had a run-off against Joe Purcell. And, in fact, the weekend before the run-off election on a Tuesday; the run-off was two weeks after the primary election. Joe Purcell was leading in our polls. And, we did an advertising campaign over that weekend. Distributed radio ads and TV spots by volunteers. Did a caravan across the state. And, to Memphis and Tulsa and Shreveport. And, we had spots on the air; we got this information on the poll like Friday. And, produced the spots Friday night, all night; sent them out Saturday morning, early, and during the night. They were running on Saturday and Sunday. And, Bill Clinton wins like by 51/49 or something like that. So, he was very close to losing to, in the Democratic primary in 1982." https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/arkansas/interviews/watkins.html

Although the race was not quite as close as Watkins remembers, still it was close enough to make it plausible Purcell could win (even without any additional Clinton sex scandals...) The most obvious POD: simply let Purcell be a little bit less candid about the need to raise taxes. According to https://web.archive.org/web/20040427040546/http://arktimes.com/dumas/112202dumas.html(referring to a post-election tax hike proposal by recently re-elected Governor Huckabee):

"Huckabee's tax plan might not have elected Jimmie Lou Fisher, but the conventional strategy is that you do not take a chance on honesty before an election. There is a scant record on which to judge. Joe Purcell, a losing candidate for governor in 1982. Walter Mondale in 1984, before losing 49 of 50 states...." (Emphasis added.)

So we have Joe Purcell beating Bill Clinton in the runoff--and presumably also beating Republican Governor Frank White in November. Clinton has now lost two elections in a row--the 1980 general election for Governor and the 1982 primary. Assuming Purcell does a reasonably good job, it will be hard for Clinton to challenge him successfully, nor do Arkansas' two Democratic Senators--Dale Bumpers and David Pryor--look particularly vulnerable, and did not retire until 1998 and 1996, respectively. So does this end Bill Clinton's political prospects? Or can the "Comeback Kid" still make a comeback? Purcell, one should note, died on March 5, 1987, so presumably Winston Bryant becomes governor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Bryant Does Clinton have a chance of defeating him in 1990 (Arkansas having switched to four-year terms for governors)? Maybe, but it usually is hard to defeat an incumbent governor in a primary, and in any event, Clinton may be seen as a has-been by 1990, and even if he does win, he will not be taken seriously as a presidential candidate in 1992 with so few years as governor. Of course, Purcell might retire in 1986 or even 1984; even in 1982 he was "ill from diabetes and arthritis" according to https://encyclopediaofarkansas.net/entries/joe-edward-purcell-2456/

[1] The figures are from the Almanac of American Politics 1984, p.55, from which I also got the account of Frank White's troubles in 1982. That page also contains the memorable line about Clinton in 1978: "some, absurdly, mentioned this 32-year old incoming governor of a small state as a possible president."
 
Last edited:
I think Clinton will definitely try to give it one more heave, but even if he enters the Governor's Mansion in '84, I'd imagine his Presidential prospects would be much weaker than in OTL - the "Comeback Kid" will probably have a worse ground game and staff, but I could still see him getting the nomination in the thin Democratic field of 1992.
 
He might run for the House.

If he does run for governor in 1988 he could win. He won two previous statewide elections so it's not like he would be an unknown or a perennial loser. On the national level, nobody will care if he lost twice instead of once. His profile would come from being governor.

HW, Reagan, Carter, and Nixon all lost elections and came back to win the presidency.
 
Unless I'm missing something, if Purcell dies on schedule to OTL, the next election is in 1990, not 1988 - the Arkansas constitution had changed before 1986 away from two-year terms. Even if Clinton somehow defeated Winston Bryant as the three-year incumbent in 1990 - which I severely doubt - there's no way he's going to be running in 92.

Even if Purcell dies before the 1986 election and Clinton reclaims the governorship then, I doubt Clinton would be as viable in 1992 as he was IOTL. He may have been relatively nationally unknown, but he was well-known by the media and Democratic officeholders - he'd been a governor for a decade, chair of the national governors' association, and a high-profile speaker at the 1988 DNC.

I don't remotely see Bill Clinton becoming president ITTL.
 
Unless I'm missing something, if Purcell dies on schedule to OTL, the next election is in 1990, not 1988 - the Arkansas constitution had changed before 1986 away from two-year terms. Even if Clinton somehow defeated Winston Bryant as the three-year incumbent in 1990 - which I severely doubt - there's no way he's going to be running in 92.

Even if Purcell dies before the 1986 election and Clinton reclaims the governorship then, I doubt Clinton would be as viable in 1992 as he was IOTL. He may have been relatively nationally unknown, but he was well-known by the media and Democratic officeholders - he'd been a governor for a decade, chair of the national governors' association, and a high-profile speaker at the 1988 DNC.

I don't remotely see Bill Clinton becoming president ITTL.

Thanks for reminding me of the change to four-year terms. (I have corrected my original post.) But it still is quite possible that Purcell, in view of his health, will decide not to run again in 1986. Whether if elected then Clinton will still be a viable presidential candidate in 1992 is of course uncertain.
 
Last edited:
I'm not even sure he'd be nominated in 1986, if Purcell retires. With one general election loss and one nomination loss, he'd start to get the perennial candidate tag hung around him. Presumably he'd have one serious opponent for the nomination in the form of Bryant, and maybe AG Steve Clark too.
 

SsgtC

Banned
If Clinton wants to stay relevant politically, he would probably run for the House in 84. Assuming he gets elected, he would then be forced to decide whether to run for Governor in 86 (if Purcell retires) or run for reelection to his house seat. If his next opportunity for Governor comes in 1990, he may just elect to remain in Congress. By 1990, he's a 3 term congressman and likely pretty powerful member of the Democratic Caucus and chairing at least one powerful committee. He could realistically become Speaker of the House ITTL
 
I just listened to his autobiography (well, the first half since the library cut it off after he got elected so I assume there’s a Part 2.) In any case, he referred to a point in his life where, if he doesn’t get back to the governorship, he would have ended up “writing wills and divorce settlements instead of this book.” He was an “of counsel” attorney after he was defeated in 1980, and he was paid quite well but without anything resembling political power. So it’s possible he gets comfortable in that life and starts to see his chances of public office destroyed, especially if he and Hillary have a falling out.
 
I just listened to his autobiography (well, the first half since the library cut it off after he got elected so I assume there’s a Part 2.) In any case, he referred to a point in his life where, if he doesn’t get back to the governorship, he would have ended up “writing wills and divorce settlements instead of this book.” He was an “of counsel” attorney after he was defeated in 1980, and he was paid quite well but without anything resembling political power. So it’s possible he gets comfortable in that life and starts to see his chances of public office destroyed, especially if he and Hillary have a falling out.
I think a quite retirement is definitely most likely, but this leaves the question of who gets elected in '92 open. Would it be Kerry, Brown, Tsongas, or someone entirely new who senses an open opportunity?
 

SsgtC

Banned
I think a quite retirement is definitely most likely, but this leaves the question of who gets elected in '92 open. Would it be Kerry, Brown, Tsongas, or someone entirely new who senses an open opportunity?
Probably Bush. Clinton's win in OTL was considered a long shot. The entire field in 92, including Clinton, was considered decidedly "second tier." The candidates in 92 were mainly there to raise their profiles. IMO, I think they all expected to lose to Bush in the General until Bush stumbled and Clinton had mainly sown up the nomination. Strictly my opinion, I think they were hoping to be nominated, run a good race, even if they lost, but make the election so close that they would then be considered a first tier candidate in 96, when a Democrat was practically guaranteed to be elected.
 
Probably Bush. Clinton's win in OTL was considered a long shot. The entire field in 92, including Clinton, was considered decidedly "second tier." The candidates in 92 were mainly there to raise their profiles. IMO, I think they all expected to lose to Bush in the General until Bush stumbled and Clinton had mainly sown up the nomination. Strictly my opinion, I think they were hoping to be nominated, run a good race, even if they lost, but make the election so close that they would then be considered a first tier candidate in 96, when a Democrat was practically guaranteed to be elected.
I figured but who would be the sacrificial lamb ITTL
 
Gore didn't want to be considered in 1992 so I doubt he would run. I think that Tsongas could win the primary and have a good shot to win the election. Why? "Read my lips: No more taxes!"
 
Clinton ran an excellent campaign in ‘92 but if someone else was nominated they wouldn’t be a sacrificial lamb. The economy was bad and Bush’s approval ratings were low. He still could’ve eeked out a win over a Democrat who ran a weaker campaign if his (Bush’s) campaign improved as well, but he was actually fighting uphill given the fundamentals of the race. People thought he was unbeatable in ‘91, but a year later his support largely evaporated. Bush was being challenged by THREE separate candidates because of the poor economy — in his party, in the other party, and outside the party system. He was very vulnerable to any Democrat, except that none of the big time Democrats realized that in fall ‘91 when they could’ve started running!
 
Gore didn't want to be considered in 1992 so I doubt he would run. I think that Tsongas could win the primary and have a good shot to win the election. Why? "Read my lips: No more taxes!"

I always wonder how things would go if Tsongas was nominated: his primary campaign was clearly appealing to people but the guy was sooooooooo dullllllllllllll. He made Al Gore look like Huey Long.
 
If Clinton isn't a candidate in 1992 and the field stays the same, Harkin, Tsongas, and Kerrey would have a 50/50 shot at winning, Brown would narrowly lose to Bush.
 
Top