Which one of these scenarios is most realistic? George McGovern beating Richard Nixon in 1972, Walter Mondale beating Ronald Reagan in 1984, or Bob Dole beating Bill Clinton in 1996? I think McGovern in '72 is the least likely of the three, but can't decide between the other two as to which of them is more plausible.
Which is more realistic? McGovern in '72, Mondale in '84, or Dole in '96?
- Thread starter dw93
- Start date
Bob Dole won 19 states. McGovern and Mondale only won 1 + DC. Nixon and Reagan received around 60% of the popular vote. Bill Clinton was just short of 50% in 1996. While unlikely, I'd say Dole defeating Clinton in 1996 is a lot more plausible.
Mondale is least likely, he was running against a popular President and fundamentals made it impossible to win. With McGovern at least there was the potential Watergate game-changer. Dole was at least somewhat competitive. Clinton could have fallen due to the Republican Revolution or some sex scandal. Unlikely but much more possible than the other two.
True, but the country was better off (at least economically) in 1996 than it was in 1972 and 1984, plus Nixon's, Reagan's, and Clinton's re elections weren't a sure thing until 1972, 1984, and late 1995 respectively.
McGovern was easier to attack and had the Eagleton debacle. If Mondale kept his mouth shut about taxes and picked someone stronger than Ferraro, he would've faired much better than he did.
Dole is the most likely if Clinton makes a major fuck-up, but McGovern is possible if Nixon dies in 1969 and President Agnew goes full-on Crazy Cold Warrior, but butterflies may lead to Humphrey being nominated (he barely lost in 1972 IOTL). Mondale is also likely if someone else is appointed instead of Volcker. With the economy still in the toilet, Mondale may win.
Nixon dying in '69 and Agnew taking over almost assures someone else (Humphrey or Muskie) get the nomination and winning big, or have the trends of 1970 and 1971 continue into 72, which makes Nixon vulnerable, but then again, someone else could end up the nominee in this scenario. Otherwise, Watergate coming out early and before the 72 election and McGovern picking a better running mate is the only plausible way Nixon loses to McGovern, and that's stretching it.
For Mondale, I agree Carter appointing someone less competent than Volcker in '79 or Reagan firing him early in his term would do the trick. You could also make Reagan's age an even bigger issue by having him come off as he did in the first debate with Mondale throughout the entire election campaign, or have the allegations that the Reagan campaign cut a deal with the Iranians to hold the hostages longer come out, and have it be true. What I said about Mondale with regards to taxes and Ferraro help him to. Reagan going into Lebanon after the barracks are bombed and getting us bogged down into a quagmire there could also swing the election.
For Dole in '96, maybe Clinton gets us bogged down in Somalia or Rwanda and screws it up royally, or goes to war with North Korea (we came close OTL) and botches it, or a scandal comes out in the fall (Maybe Lewinsky scandal comes out two years earlier, it did start in 1995), or have the GOP not overplay its hand after 1994, which avoids the shutdown and makes Clinton more vulnerable going into 96. The economy may rule the day in either case as it wasn't gonna go downhill at all.
I'm starting to agree with Dole in 96 being the most likely, but I still believe a strong case could be made for Mondale. McGovern, in my view is a no go.
Dole is by far the most realistic.
A real good Clinton scandal or a market slump could give him the win.
For Mondale or McGovern you need a much bigger scandal/departure to flip
A real good Clinton scandal or a market slump could give him the win.
For Mondale or McGovern you need a much bigger scandal/departure to flip
Agree that Dole has the best chance out of the 3 to win, as I can easily see Clinton done in by a combination of foreign entanglements, an economy that isn't quite performing like OTL and a Lewinsky Sex Scandal. The last one alone could convince voters that Clinton is 'corrupt' and lacking in moral values compared with Dole.
McGovern could have been in a situation where he wasn't wiped out as badly as he was if he didn't have the whole Eagleton fiasco, but a lot more would have had to have gone wrong.
Mondale winning in 84 is almost ASB.
McGovern could have been in a situation where he wasn't wiped out as badly as he was if he didn't have the whole Eagleton fiasco, but a lot more would have had to have gone wrong.
Mondale winning in 84 is almost ASB.
I think McGovern is closer to ASB than Mondale. Both Reagan and Nixon won 49 states in the electoral college, but Nixon, IRC, broke 60% in the PV while Reagan didn't.
Indeed, but the same advantages McGovern had IOTL (like being the one to make the new primary system) during the nomination process still exist. He may lose to Humphrey, as he almost did IOTL, but he still has a good chance of winning as he understands the nomination process.
Reagan was two percent from winning 60%, well within the margin of error. Also, everything went wrong for McGovern. If his campaign continued to be as excellent as it was during the primaries, he could whittle down Nixon's lead to fifteen points. Still a huge defeat, but not as big as IOTL.
Dole's definitely the most realistic. A Clinton sex scandal, bam.
Between McGovern and Mondale... I really don't know. Both of them were screwed unless the stars aligned.
Between McGovern and Mondale... I really don't know. Both of them were screwed unless the stars aligned.
What Octosteel said is good for McGovern. For Mondale, no Volker which means inflation doesn't go away, Reagan's age catches up with faster than OTL, a quagmire war in Lebanon, or a major scandal that Reagan can't "I don't remember" his way out off. People don't realize, Reagan was looking like a one term President until the end of 1983 when the recovery finally took off.
Paul V McNutt
Banned
Dole did the best out of the three. He was also running against a president who was engulfed in a scandal two years later. McGovern was running against a president who was engulfed in a bigger scandal one year later.
Dole in 96. If Gingrich had the foresight not to shut the government down, then I think Dole would have had a fighting chance to defeat Clinton. It wouldn't have been easy though
How many angels fit on the head of a pin?
None of these candidates really had anywhere near a shot at winning - so, debating who has a better shot is pointless. The only way we get to any candidate defeating any of those three incumbents is through major scandal or death or something that could be applied to ANY of the candidates.
Sure, a more intense sex scandal in '96 could've sunk Clinton. But it being revealed Reagan knowingly had Alzheimer's in 1984, but hid it, could have been just as devastating. Or the economy doesn't rebound at near as fast of a rate because, for a bevy of reasons, like Paul Volcker not being kept. Reagan was vulnerable in 1982. If things continue to stagnate, he's toast in '84. With Nixon, it could be Watergate and the complete meltdown he had in the wake of it.
I mean, my point is that any devastating event to shift one election could be used, in other ways, to shift any of the other elections. So, saying 'if Clinton had a sex scandal in '96 Dole could've won' is really no different than saying 'if Reagan didn't do this or that early in his presidency, Mondale could've won'. They're both plausible in the realm of what we're discussing, but also so radically divergent from reality that it kind of makes this whole point moot.
None of these candidates really had anywhere near a shot at winning - so, debating who has a better shot is pointless. The only way we get to any candidate defeating any of those three incumbents is through major scandal or death or something that could be applied to ANY of the candidates.
Sure, a more intense sex scandal in '96 could've sunk Clinton. But it being revealed Reagan knowingly had Alzheimer's in 1984, but hid it, could have been just as devastating. Or the economy doesn't rebound at near as fast of a rate because, for a bevy of reasons, like Paul Volcker not being kept. Reagan was vulnerable in 1982. If things continue to stagnate, he's toast in '84. With Nixon, it could be Watergate and the complete meltdown he had in the wake of it.
I mean, my point is that any devastating event to shift one election could be used, in other ways, to shift any of the other elections. So, saying 'if Clinton had a sex scandal in '96 Dole could've won' is really no different than saying 'if Reagan didn't do this or that early in his presidency, Mondale could've won'. They're both plausible in the realm of what we're discussing, but also so radically divergent from reality that it kind of makes this whole point moot.
we can go a couple of rounds, but I think the strongest case is that it was Reagan's deficit spending which brought us out of the 1980 and '82 double-dip recession.
It was Volker that broke inflation though. If Reagan fired Volker and inflation continued to rise and the recovery was weaker than OTL, delayed, or prevented as a result (I'm no economist, so I'm not sure just how much of an effect inflation has on the overall economy), that could've sunk Reagan.