WI: 2000 Without Bush or McCain?

Jusr a curious though I had, but let's say for some reason both George W. Bush and John McCain decide in 2000 not to run for President,for whatever reasons, who would be the most likely people to be the Republican Nominee for President? Plus, who might they pick as their running mate, and how would they handle Gore in the General Election, assuming he is still the nominee? Would they win?
 
John Ashcroft would be the Republican nominee. He probably wouldn't win the general, thankfully.

Who would he choose as his running mate? Pass. Probably someone defence-minded like Cheney.
 
Orrin Hatch seems best poised to win the GOP nomination, which goes to Gore. In 2004 it is Bush v. McCain, and if they defeat Gore (no party has won 4 consecutive WH terms since the 22nd's ratification 60 years ago) then the Democrats come back in 2008. If not then in 2008 it is a President McCain/Romney/Huckabee.
 

Thande

Donor
If not then in 2008 it is a President McCain/Romney/Huckabee.

That's far too convergent with a 2000 POD. Romney might be a political figure and potential candidate either way thanks to his family and money, but Huckabee's much more debatable.
 
Jack Kemp, Lamar Alexander, Orrin Hatch, Gary Bauer, Steve Forbes, possibly add in John Danforth, Frank Keating...

Jack Kemp, if he ran would have an advantage in the primary as the established next-in-line. Though outside of Keating and the perennial Forbes, the GOP still suffers from their generation gap that GWB bridges IOTL. Of all, I'd say only Keating would present as strong of a challenge against Gore as Bush did.

Really odd, actually, how very few Boomers were set up for 2000. There were plenty out there, Bill Frist for one, but were too new to have the type of establishment support necessary to win a GOP primary.


If Gore wins in 2000, GOP wins in 2004, possibly with Bush/Giuliani/McCain. If not, then that means that Congress and the State Houses are so heavily GOP after 16 years of Dems in the White House, that butterfly in a whole host of GOP contenders beyond the usual names. Romney could still be a factor, likely serving a second term in MA as of '08.
 
Of those, I'd say Danforth or Keating would emerge as the challenger to Hatch. Bush was the most inexperienced of the candidates, without the business success that Romney possesses, but the dynast bonus gave him a massive boost. Unlike the Democrats, who have what is most diplomatically called a love-hate relationship with theirs. Hillary's backstabbing by the Establishment in '08 is the ne plus ultra of that. Probably Hatch wins though, but he would run as a staunch fiscal conservative, unlike Bush who ran a broadly centre right campaign (which caused worries in the Bush camp about a serious challenge from the right) on many domestic issues.
 
The primaries will be interesting. Without Bush, Steve Forbes will be the victor in Alaska since he lost to Bush by a very small amount. Both are credited with receiving 36 percent of the vote IOTL, so I think that Forbes probably edges ahead in Alaska. If the would be Bush vote is divided in Iowa and doesn't quickly coalesce around another candidate, then there's a slight chance he wins in Iowa.

From there things become slightly more difficult to predict. Presuming that Forbes isn't the establishment candidate, the establishment will have to reassert itself in New Hampshire.

Elizabeth Dole probably stays in the race a bit longer.
 
Well the challenge for Danforth or Keating in defeating Hatch would be if they could gain the early coalition of support among the establishment that Bush managed to commandeer as early as 1998 IOTL. That, essentially was the advantage of dynasty for him. Part of what makes this question a bit difficult is that Bush's establishment support was so widespread that most other possibles, specifically Danforth and Keating, fell in line early and never considered bids.

I could nevertheless see Keating commandeering something near that level of support assuming Bush makes his intention not to run clear early on. With a similar western plains style of leadership, a solid connection to the Bush family, and some name recognition as Gov. organizing relief efforts during the OKC bombing, he's the best chance for the GOP to retake the White House in this scenario. It is a matter of whether an establishment anxious to retake the White House after eight years can see that.

Nevertheless, if he ran, Kemp could blind them to that a bit, as he is respected within the party. Hatch meanwhile would take some of his friends from the Senate. In a sense this is essentially won or lost in '98-'99. Unite behind the more electable Keating, rather than a standard GOP old guy, and they defeat Gore. Otherwise. Gore over Hatch or Kemp, wait until 2004.

Usually dynasties always put the oldest foot forward, at least in North America. Jeb would be the better candidate though.

Agreed, it would be his prerogative. Depends on what reason GWB did not take his 2000 opportunity ITTL, and whether it holds true for '04. If so, for instance if he would rather Rick Perry and be Gov. for a couple of decades (unprecedented in TX despite lack of term limits), then Jeb would very much be considered.
 
So Keating/Engler perhaps? That should lock down the industrial states among other things, plus give them a victory of somewhere between 301-325 electoral votes and 51-52% PV.
 
Good question. The Midwest would be a decent regional balance. Expect Keating to run a similar platform as GWB, law and order, pro-education "compassionate conservatism" under a different name. So he may also want to shore up fiscal conservative credibility.

Engler would be a prime choice, running on his fiscal record in MI (Keating meanwhile should keep blue collar voters in line). Terry Branstad would not be an unwise consideration; expect the press to go apeshit if he shaves the moustache.
 
In which case we have a similar campaign as Bush OTL, only with less of an appeal to Southern Evangelical Protestantism as the basis for the "compassionate" end of the platform. The GOP instead presents a ticket with a Roman Catholic on top (both slots if Keating/Engler)

Doubtful though that this harms the ticket in any place damaging to the campaign. Possibly Arkansas is closer, though this is made up by a stronger perfromance in Wisconsin and Iowa. There is also a question of whether this team is wise enough to pursue WV.

And of course there isn't the DUI fiasco a week before the election. Any losses due to ID politics in rural FL or MO ITTL would not offset the votes lost due to that IOTL.

genusmap.php

Keating/Branstad 296
Gore/Lieberman 242
(could also flip NM for 301... figured there are close losses in most scenarios though.)

genusmap.php

Gore/Lieberman 328
Hatch/(Danforth?) 210
 
Last edited:
I'm a bit ignorant on the leadup to the 2000 election since this was long before I started to take interest in politics, but why not Newt Gingrich for the GOP? He's a few years removed from his zenith as Speaker but still very much a GOP household name and the bane of Clinton's presidency, seems like a likely candidate for the nomination.
 
As polarizing as Newt Gingrich's name can be today, that was x1000 in '00. He was indeed the face of the Republican counterbalance to the Clinton administration for years, and as such also played lightning rod for the media. He was blamed for the Gov't shutdown. He was blamed for overplaying the Lewinsky scandal. He was blamed for losing rather than gaining GOP seats in the Midterms as a result. And worst of all for his electability, his affairs had just come to light. At the start of the 2000 race, he had yet to marry his latest mistress.

The coming months will tell if any of these liabilities have worn away with time, but as of 2000, Newt was unelectable, would never have gotten through the primaries and would have been skewered by party leadership had he made motions toward a run.
 
Top