WI: 2000 Without Bush or McCain?

Orrin Hatch seems best poised to win the GOP nomination,

Orrin Hatch was a joke candidate who went absolutely nowhere and was the first to pull out of the race IOTL, before Iowa, after coming, ye gods, last in the Alaska straw poll. Saying he is best poised to win the nomination is a rather odd statement. Alan Keyes had a better chance of being the nominee than Orrin Hatch did.

No, it would be Ashcroft IMO. IOTL he didn't run for obvious reasons, (He looked at it seriously, but in the face of Bush, wisely decided against it) but remove even just Bush and he would run. Even against McCain, he would likely win the nomination; the GOP establishment would probably coalesce around him. If you look at commentary of the time, then he was extremely highly rated (electorally-speaking) and would have served the same uniting function of the party's wings that Bush did IOTL.

All the other candidates mentioned in the thread are stodgemeisters - too old, too lacking in oomph (yes, even in relation to John Ashcroft) and unlikely to gain any traction. Keating could be a wildcard purely because of his Catholicism, and slightly-out-of-the-box-style western appeal (but that would probably simply serve to damage McCain if only Bush is removed, and I'm not entirely convinced he would run anyway) but other than that, they're not going anywhere. Forbes could be an interesting factor, but after '96 he's got too much of the stigma of a wrecker about him and isn't an obvious champion of the social conservative wing of the party in his 2000 incarnation.

Best guess with no McCain or Bush is Ashcroft wins Iowa, Forbes wins New Hampshire, Ashcroft recovers and wins South Carolina and from there the nomination. If he runs, Keating would be banking, as would Forbes, on Super Tuesday delivering a bounce which probably wouldn't arrive, (Maybe having ran close in the previous states as the third candidate and possibly winning Delaware to keep his campaign alive, just) or if it did it would not be enough to carry him though.

So at the end of the day, Ashcroft versus Gore. But no slick Bush campaign, and, DUI, booze etc excepted, a generally less robust candidate in the shape of Ashcroft probably means Gore can finish safely.
 
Last edited:
I don't really agree with most of the names being floated. Absent Bush and McCain, the Republican establishment would surely have settled on some other figure prominent at the time, most likely a governor, given how many ambitious GOP governors were around at the time and given how toxic the congressional GOP brand was post-impeachment and post-Gingrich.

Frank Keating and John Engler would seem likely prospects, Keating probably the stronger bet. Tom Ridge would be too if he could somehow get over his being pro-choice (which I'm skeptical he'd be able to do).
 
Just throwing this out there, but Dan Quayle actually attempted a run in 2000 but withdrew due to lack of funding. I can see him picking up some sort of percentage in the primaries. Buchanan might stay in the race also instead of bolting for the Reform Party.

In response to the suggestions of Kemp, I'd love to see him as President (despite certain disagreements), but he'd been out of office for eight years at that point and the highest he'd gotten in terms of office was HUD Secretary. Still, Kemp giving it a second go would be interesting.
 
Lest we forget, Bush began his campaign effectively prior to 1999, including locking up endorsements...and more importantly, fundraising. With Bush out of the picture, the money and political field is wide open.
Lest we forget, Elizabeth Dole was also running. She would most definitely draw media attention, and she held two cabinet posts, so she could claim experience. (One can only wonder why Sarah Palin never mentioned her...)
 
Top