WI: Bush didn’t choose Dan Quayle as VP?

if Bush didn’t choose Dan Quayle and chose someone else, (let’s say Jack Kemp to throw a name), how does this affect the Bush presidency? Would this change possibly help or harm the ticket? What would become of Dan Quayle? Would he be a success down the line?
 
Quayle supposedly was one of the first to urge Bush to get Congressional approval for the Gulf War, and his supporters argue that his lobbying was important in getting Senate approval (he was after all the only ex-senator in the higher reaches of the administration). https://books.google.com/books?id=UkwStmt8xbUC&pg=PA191 But I'm not sure how significant that was: Bush would have gone to war with or without congressional approval, and would have gotten the same short-term boost in approval ratings (which discouraged a lot of Democrats from seeking the 1992 presidential nomination).

As for his effect on the 1988 and 1992 elections IMO it was negligible. As Steve Chapman notes in "Nobody Votes for the Veep" http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...minute/2000/06/nobody_votes_for_the_veep.html "In Gallup Polls taken every four years asking if the selection of a particular running mate or a type of running mate (a black, for example, or a woman) would make the respondent more or less likely to vote for either ticket, the invariable consensus choice is that it "doesn't make much difference." Even in 1988, 64 percent of voters said that about Quayle. Only 5 percent of those who voted for Dukakis gave Quayle as an explanation."
 
Maybe Dukakis would lose Washington state which he won by less than 2%, but the effects would not be much. Maybe the VP could lead to a better performance in a certain region, with Kemp New York could go for Bush, he lost it by 4.10% IOTL so it's not certain but a possibility. Perhaps Bush's alternative VP could run in 1996 or 2000 though.
 
if Bush didn’t choose Dan Quayle and chose someone else, (let’s say Jack Kemp to throw a name), how does this affect the Bush presidency? Would this change possibly help or harm the ticket? What would become of Dan Quayle? Would he be a success down the line?


Quayle IOTL has since 1993 been utterly forgotten(note in the last two Presidental
elections there wasn't even a peep about
him trying for the G.O.P. Presidental nomin-
action). If this is what's happened to him after actually being a heart beat from
the Presidency, it doesn't take much to
imagine Quayle's fate if H.W. had never
picked him at all.
 
Quayle would probably be re-elected to the Senate in 1992, but would be in trouble if Evan Bayh were to run against him in 1998.
 
Social conservative, crucial Midwestern state, young guy with old Bush. It sounds good on paper.

Indiana was not a "crucial" state--it was sure to go GOP for president in any reasonably close race. (Starting with 1940, it has voted for the GOP presidential candidate every time except 1964 and 2008.)
 
Indiana was not a "crucial" state--it was sure to go GOP for president in any reasonably close race. (Starting with 1940, it has voted for the GOP presidential candidate every time except 1964 and 2008.)
Oh yes. I meant the crucial Midwest region. The Midwest is crucial undoubtedly. My bad.
 
Oh yes. I meant the crucial Midwest region. The Midwest is crucial undoubtedly. My bad.

I think the number of Illinoisans or Ohioans who will vote for a presidential candidate because his running mate is from Indiana is negligible. It has been debated if vice-presidential candidate even help their ticket in their *own* state; if there is such an advantage, it is small, especially in large states. https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...nixon-win-in-1960.427880/page-2#post-15803317 The benefit to the ticket in *neighboring* states has to be even smaller.
 
Top