The Amazing Number of Democrats Who Didn't Run in 1992

David T

I found it intriguing that of the five front-runners for the 1976 Democraticpresidential nomination in this 1973 Gallup poll--Kennedy, Wallace, Muskie, Humphrey, McGovern--*four* decided not to run... https://www.nytimes.com/1973/07/15/archives/gallup-poll-shows-kennedy-is-leading…

So I asked myself if that was unique--and found out that not only wasn't it unique, but that the early polls for the 1992 nomination easily outdid it. *All eight* of the front-runners in polls conducted before the 1990 midterms declined to run in 1992! (Cuomo, Jackson, Bentsen, Gephardt, Gore, Bradley, Nunn, and Schroeder...) https://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/14/is-it-too-early-for-2016-polls

1992-polls.jpg


You had to go down to ninth place to get a candidate who actually ran (and won).

The absence of four of the top five in 1976 is pretty easy to explain: With Humphrey, it was health problems, with Kennedy it was fear of the Chappiquiddick issue, and Muskie and McGovern didn't want to repeat their bad experiences (Muskie in the primaries, McGovern in the general election) of 1972. 1992 at first seems more puzzling, until one remembers that Bush was considered unbeatable just after Desert Storm. What if more Democrats realized in time that Bush was beatable? We've discussed a Cuomo candidacy several times, but not some of the others--though it must be said that Bill Bradley was hurt by his narrow re-election to the Senate in 1990 (some of the unpopularity of Governor Florio's tax increases rubbed off on him). 1990 United States Senate election in New Jersey - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:

Whanztastic

You kinda hit the nail on the head - Desert Storm. I mean, why would Dems think it winnable and who would jump in for what reasons?

Al Gore had personal reasons. Jackson was explicit about not wanting to run 3 times and losing because it would discredit his movement. So he declined to try and be kingmaker/advance issues. Bentsen was probably pass any moment.

Bradley is one of the candidates I could see hopping in and actually making a difference in this list.

Relatedly, the SNL sketch about the Dem primary still holds up.

Watch Saturday Night Live Clip: Campaign '92: The Race to Avoid Being the Guy Who Loses to Bush - NBC.com

Watch Saturday Night Live highlight: Campaign '92: The Race to Avoid Being the Guy Who Loses to Bush - NBC.com
www.nbc.com www.nbc.com
 
Ariosto

Ariosto

The success of Desert Storm and the Persian Gulf War really complicated the arithmetic that many political campaigns ran with at the time, and for the vast majority of contenders the election was simply just not deemed as winnable. Gephardt seems the most transparent in terms of not running due to this, his public refusal to run not long following the conclusion of the conflict.​
​
Al Gore I believe would have almost certainly have run for the Presidency were Albert not hit by that car in '89, and he'd be the favorite to win the nomination with his then stronger relationship with African American voters that... honestly based on what I've read about the '92 Primary Campaign, were rather distraught with the options available to them, least much more so then the average Democratic voter. ​
​
As @David_T has said Cuomo has been discussed a number of times, and for good reason; Mario had looked rather extensively at a potential campaign before declining more or less at the last minute, was even then still subject to a rather sizable draft effort which involved Arthur Schlesinger, and there was open discussion about putting Cuomo on the ballot of the New York Primary as a Favorite-Son who could make it if the Convention deadlocked. ​
​
Bill Bradley was not subject to nearly the same amount of speculation as Cuomo, but he was also suggested as a Favorite-Son for New Jersey along the same lines of thought.​
​
For Sam Nunn it can be argued either way whether he ever really wanted to seek the Presidency, but his opposition to authorizing Desert Storm, regardless of his posturing after the fact, definitely did a lot to more or less kill his Presidential prospects. ​
​
As @Whanztastic said Jesse Jackson was not particularly fond of running for the Democratic nomination for a third time, being potentially labeled a perennial candidate for the nomination, but he had already been hampering his own efforts in other ways. It was widely expected that Jackson was going to run for Mayor of Washington in '90, and his refusal to do so and potentially win and serve in an elected office was widely questioned. There was also a sizable level of discontent by this point with Jackson among a lot of African-American politicos who were not enthusiastic with Jackson's leadership of their wing of the Democratic Party, and so while the rank-and-file may have been onboard with another campaign, his rankled associates in positions of influence may have complicated matters.​
​
Patricia Schroeder's '88 campaign never even made it out of the exploratory phase as it was, so I don't feel it is all that surprising that it failed to materialize.​
​
Workable Goblin said:
Well, the fact that the election is a year away and the victory bump is likely to fade?
Click to expand...

The problem is that it took a long time for Bush's approval to fall; by the end of October his approval was still sitting at around (~67%) despite (~66%) of Americans feeling as though the Administration was failing them economically, and so for a lot of Democrats it seemed as though the victory bump was a fair bit more permanent then it actually was. This also wasn't far removed from a time where Reagan had managed to win reelection despite the economy performing poorly the year before, so there may have been an expectation that '92 would be similar. It was only when the bottom fell out in November that Bush's vulnerability first truly showed itself, but by then many Democrats also felt as if it was to late to properly organize and fund a campaign for the Presidency, and again there was still that presumption that the economy might recover again in the following year.​
 

Amadeus

Whanztastic said:
Relatedly, the SNL sketch about the Dem primary still holds up.
Click to expand...

Except the xenophobic, anti-Italian stereotyping of Cuomo as an affiliate of the mafia. (A, he did not have "mob ties" as it is said in the sketch. B, as my parents' generation can attest to, this was a common slander against individual Italian-Americans at the time regardless of whether or not they were associated with the mob).

That said, the discussion of Cuomo's unpopular record on the economy has more merit...
 
Last edited:

Hcira1

Ariosto said:
The success of Desert Storm and the Persian Gulf War really complicated the arithmetic that many political campaigns ran with at the time, and for the vast majority of contenders the election was simply just not deemed as winnable. Gephardt seems the most transparent in terms of not running due to this, his public refusal to run not long following the conclusion of the conflict.​
​
Al Gore I believe would have almost certainly have run for the Presidency were Albert not hit by that car in '89, and he'd be the favorite to win the nomination with his then stronger relationship with African American voters that... honestly based on what I've read about the '92 Primary Campaign, were rather distraught with the options available to them, least much more so then the average Democratic voter. ​
​
As @David_T has said Cuomo has been discussed a number of times, and for good reason; Mario had looked rather extensively at a potential campaign before declining more or less at the last minute, was even then still subject to a rather sizable draft effort which involved Arthur Schlesinger, and there was open discussion about putting Cuomo on the ballot of the New York Primary as a Favorite-Son who could make it if the Convention deadlocked. ​
​
Bill Bradley was not subject to nearly the same amount of speculation as Cuomo, but he was also suggested as a Favorite-Son for New Jersey along the same lines of thought.​
​
For Sam Nunn it can be argued either way whether he ever really wanted to seek the Presidency, but his opposition to authorizing Desert Storm, regardless of his posturing after the fact, definitely did a lot to more or less kill his Presidential prospects. ​
​
As @Whanztastic said Jesse Jackson was not particularly fond of running for the Democratic nomination for a third time, being potentially labeled a perennial candidate for the nomination, but he had already been hampering his own efforts in other ways. It was widely expected that Jackson was going to run for Mayor of Washington in '90, and his refusal to do so and potentially win and serve in an elected office was widely questioned. There was also a sizable level of discontent by this point with Jackson among a lot of African-American politicos who were not enthusiastic with Jackson's leadership of their wing of the Democratic Party, and so while the rank-and-file may have been onboard with another campaign, his rankled associates in positions of influence may have complicated matters.​
​
Patricia Schroeder's '88 campaign never even made it out of the exploratory phase as it was, so I don't feel it is all that surprising that it failed to materialize.​
​


The problem is that it took a long time for Bush's approval to fall; by the end of October his approval was still sitting at around (~67%) despite (~66%) of Americans feeling as though the Administration was failing them economically, and so for a lot of Democrats it seemed as though the victory bump was a fair bit more permanent then it actually was. This also wasn't far removed from a time where Reagan had managed to win reelection despite the economy performing poorly the year before, so there may have been an expectation that '92 would be similar. It was only when the bottom fell out in November that Bush's vulnerability first truly showed itself, but by then many Democrats also felt as if it was to late to properly organize and fund a campaign for the Presidency, and again there was still that presumption that the economy might recover again in the following year.​
Click to expand...
Honestly from a political standpoint Bush would've been better off if he'd have found an excuse to invade some little country in early 1992 or the summer.
 

dw93

I think without the Gulf War, Bush's vulnerabilities would've been apparent sooner and thus you'd be looking at a much different Democratic field. Cuomo likely goes for it, given how close he was to doing so OTL, Gephardt and Bradley are also likely to give it a go as well. 50/50 on Nunn. That said, I don't think Gore runs as his son, IIRC, was recovering from being hit by a car, Bentsen could've went for it in 88 and did, so I doubt he would've ran in a No Gulf War 1992, and Jackson would've stayed out for the reasons others mentioned. Everyone else that ran OTL also runs, so the field is pretty crowded, at least by the standards of that time. I don't think Clinton is nominated, especially if Nunn decides to run.
 

kmmontandon

Hcira1 said:
Honestly from a political standpoint Bush would've been better off if he'd have found an excuse to invade some little country in early 1992 or the summer.
Click to expand...

That could've backfired spectacularly, if we wound up with pictures of dead Americans being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu a year earlier. The original, more militarily-subdued intervention was a Bush-backed adventure, after all. If he tried to kick up Operation Restore Hope way ahead of schedule for splashy foreign-policy headlines, it might have been a disaster when the Battle of Mogadishu happens in October '92 instead of October '93.

Though a two-years-earlier intervention in Haiti might work out. The coup was still fresh after all, and right off our borders. A swift "we won't let this bullshit happen in our own backyard" campaign might've been seen as legitimately upholding American ideals in our neighborhood, even at the risk of some casualties.
 

Conster

Does Gephardt running/getting the nom take out some wind from Perot's compaign? He was anti-NAFTA back in 1988 already, and now that he's House Majority Leader he has more electability.
 
Last edited:

marktaha

Banned
If New Hampshire had the law saying that every potential candidate appears on the ballot paper unless he specifically says he doesn't want to be Presjdent?
 
Ariosto

Ariosto

Hcira1 said:
Honestly from a political standpoint Bush would've been better off if he'd have found an excuse to invade some little country in early 1992 or the summer.
Click to expand...
Actually most voters were disappointed that we didn't move into Iraq and remove Saddam from power if the polls in the Summer and Fall of '91 are to be believed, so it is a fairly simple affair to extend the conflict significantly and keep Foreign Affairs a major focus going into the election. However making that kind of decision came with serious diplomatic costs that were deemed excessive, specifically that the main bulwark against Iran would have then be thoroughly hobbled and that it might alienate our Allies in Arabia who were concerned exclusively with containing Hussein. The irony of the whole affair is that despite those costs, occupying Iraq in '91 would have been infinitely easier and less costly to American prestige then the latter occupation of Iraq in '03.​
​
Red_Neptune said:
I believe McGovern contemplated a 1976 run as well.
Click to expand...
He did, but he was..... pressured by an assortment of establishment figures to drop the idea.​
​
Of course he did run in '84, and he was certainly set up to run in '92 as well with a campaign platform and everything, but I believe he ultimately relented in an effort to make room for Tom Harkin.​
​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top