US presidential elections with stronger primary candidates

How differently would the following elections have turned out with these primary fields?

1988

Democrats:

Ted Kennedy
Mario Cuomo
Bill Clinton
Al Gore
Lloyd Bentsen
Jerry Brown
Dick Gephardt

Republicans:

George H. W. Bush
Bob Dole
Howard Baker
Jesse Helms
Tom Kean

1996

(Clinton still faces no serious primary challenge)

Republicans:

Colin Powell
Newt Gingrich
Pat Buchanan
Pete Wilson
Bill Weld
Peter DuPont
Carroll Campbell
John McCain

2004:

(Bush still faces no serious primary challenge)

Democrats:

Al Gore
Hillary Clinton
John Kerry
Howard Dean
Jesse Jackson
Bill Bradley
Joe Biden
 
How differently would the following elections have turned out with these primary fields?

1988

Democrats:

Ted Kennedy
Mario Cuomo
Bill Clinton
Al Gore
Lloyd Bentsen
Jerry Brown
Dick Gephardt

Republicans:

George H. W. Bush
Bob Dole
Howard Baker
Jesse Helms
Tom Kean

Bush is still the Republican nominee -- I'm not sure that Baker, Helms and Kean are stronger than the OTL field led by Bush and Dole.

Cuomo is probably the Democratic nominee, but it's hard to write off Bill Clinton. Gore, as you probably know, ran in '88 and never broke out of the South.

Cuomo defeats Bush fairly handily in the fall.

1996

(Clinton still faces no serious primary challenge)

Republicans:

Colin Powell
Newt Gingrich
Pat Buchanan
Pete Wilson
Bill Weld
Peter DuPont
Carroll Campbell
John McCain

The real wild card here is Powell. I still think the fundamentals of the economy favor Clinton vs. the field, but Powell is really a unique figure in modern political history. Plus, 1996 is probably the last time where he could have actually gotten the nomination in the Republican primary. Most of the rest of the field here isn't any stronger than Dole (and Gingrich and Buchanan are joke candidates, of course). Intriguingly, the presence of the truly liberal Bill Weld in your alt-primaries might make Powell more acceptable to the Republican base.

2004:

(Bush still faces no serious primary challenge)

Democrats:

Al Gore
Hillary Clinton
John Kerry
Howard Dean
Jesse Jackson
Bill Bradley
Joe Biden

The inverse of 1996; it's hard to see any of these guys beating Bush given the fundamentals on the ground with Karl Rove engineering "same sex marriage" amendments in pretty much every battleground state to drive up evangelical turnout. Hillary Clinton will have the same problem as Kerry IOTL; she's voted for the Iraq war, the PATRIOT Act, NCLB, and (I think) the Bush tax cuts. Gore's wandering around the country gaining weight and is still tagged with the "sore loser" label from 2000. Biden hasn't been rehabilitated, Bradley is a retread, and Jesse Jackson is still Jesse Jackson.

Neat questions.
 
I think 2004 is too early for Hillary to run. Yes I know she is in the Senate just the amount of time as Barack Obama. sShe would come across as an opportunist. cColin Powell is interesting. sSince the other candidates would split the social conservative vote, he could win the nomination. eWhile he would attract many Clinton voters particularly Blacks and independents, his views on abortion alienate much of the Republican base. tThere is a social conservative third party candidate.
 
Cuomo in 1988

Coming off the Keynote Address in San Francisco in 1984, and being the Governor of New York should have given Super Mario "front-runner" status going into 1988.
With Reagan winding down his two terms in office, of course the republican party would be looking to Vice President Bush. But history shows, at that point in time, that no incumbent VP has won the presidency SINCE 1836, when Martin Van Buren became our 8th president of the United States.
It could have resembled 1960 when Eisenhower was finishing up and Nixon was the heir apparent. Also, Bush had the "wimp" stigma attached to him and he needed to prove otherwise in order to win.
There would have been no "Willie Horton" Ads to benefit Bush in the Fall Campaign ... and just like 1960, the Democractic Party wins back the White House as Cuomo is elected our 41st president.
 
For that 1988, I see Ted Kennedy a close second but I don't think he'd win the nomination, especially given the strong challenges posed by Cuomo and Clinton. He'd definitely do a lot better than people would expect though.
 
One of the problems with Clinton in '88 is that he was something of a political unknown. No one knew just how good he was, so the press might not really think much of him at first.

It's also four years earlier so he might face more difficulties culturally once Gennifer Flowers hits the scene (as she inevitably will). Then there's the draft nonsense. :rolleyes:

Clinton might be able to cast himself as the New Democrat alternative to both Cuomo and Kennedy. But he's gonna have to navigate the media once his past becomes well known. In '92 he had the benefit of not going up against any superstars. ITTL, he won't be so fortunate.
 
^ I can see it going between Cuomo, Clinton and Kennedy as the strong candidates. I'd try to judge order but I know almost nothing of Cuomo besides that he apparently gave a speech in '84 people liked. I don't know what his run would be like.
 
Top