WI Bush wins in '92?

No argument there. And agree about the '96 election. Dole loses, no matter how good the economy is, because people are ready for a change.
 
Bush gets hammered over the economy, but the Democrats probably do better on working with him to reduce the deficit. We might actually have a GOP President in the post-Eisenhower era able to produce a balanced budget :)eek:)

In 1996, the Republican nomination is Dole's. Period. Dole will promptly get his ass handed to him by Al Gore.

What about the other Republican candidates? Dan Quayle will definitely want to run, and perhaps even our old friend John McCain will decide to jump in earlier.
 
agree about GHWB's superior relationship with military commanders and higher level of comfort with same.

Clinton was to the military commanders as Obama is to the Republican congress: eager to please, a little too willing to compromise, not pushing his own agenda.

iirc, Clinton had wanted boots on the ground after Osama Bin Laden.

Where Clinton backed off and settled for some cruise missiles, Bush would have insisted on American hands on Bin Laden's neck.


Bush, especially after the whining and bitching about leaving Saddam Hussein intact in Iraq, would have had Bin Laden's head on a f---ing plate.

This Bush does the righteous anger thing pretty well and makes it work. He got Noriega, he pushed Iraq out of Kuwait, and, especially after the 1993 WTC bombing, Bin Laden is emphatically marked for capture or termination.
 
I think Clinton would've tried again in 1996, maybe.


Trying to think of VP candidates from failed tickets coming back as presidential candidates... (that is, would Gore be super poised to win the nomination in 1996 after losing with Clinton in 1992?)

Mondale was VP for Carter, got beaten in 1980, got savaged in 1984...


Quayle never came close to getting the nomination

just wondering.
 
Having established a basic course of events for a second Bush term, it's about time to turn to the 1994 Midterm Elections and 1996 Presidential Election. IOTL, the Democrats lost a whopping nine seats and control of the Senate in '94. Some of that had to do with retirements, some local issues, but mostly the national mood was very anti-incumbent and anti-Democratic. With Bush serving a second term, there won't be the same mood leveled against the Democrats. The Republicans will still pick up a few seats (Arizona, Maine, Ohio, Oklahoma) but could also lose Minnesota, Washington, or Vermont. In the House, the Democrats also retain their majority, though they lose seats due to the various scandals that come with a long-time majority.

In 1996, the Democrats will be eager to take back the White House after 16 years in the desert. I agree with other posters in the belief that Gore will run, as will a few other Southerners, possibly Doug Wilder or Ann Richards. The labor-liberal wing of the party will want someone like Gephardt, Biden, or Harkin to run. If they defer, then the possibility exists for a second tier candidate like the recently reelected Harris Wofford to run. For those who think Bob Casey would run, they're wrong. His health was too weak and he knew very well that his views were too conservative on abortion. The most likely nominee is Gore, though Ann Richards could certainly win. In the general election, Bob Dole is the GOP nominee after besting Dan Quayle and a movement conservative, maybe Bob Bennett or Jack Kemp. Ross Perot runs again, getting more support than in OTL. In a Gore-Dole-Perot race, Gore by a somewhat narrower margin than in OTL. He governs from the center, and wins reelection in 2000.
 
The same people that wanted George W Bush heading their ticket 4 years later?

Quayle and Bush II were similar in intellectual curiosity, but Bush II was certainly more dogmatic in ideology and temperament. However, Bush II didn't have the albatross of tens of thousands of late night comedy jokes hanging around his neck when he pursued the nomination.
 
Quayle and Bush II were similar in intellectual curiosity, but Bush II was certainly more dogmatic in ideology and temperament. However, Bush II didn't have the albatross of tens of thousands of late night comedy jokes hanging around his neck when he pursued the nomination.

If Quayle's performance in the 1992 Vice Presidential debates is any factor, he might have been shifting to a new strategy that was similar to Bush II. Keep on the attack while brushing over issues.
 
If Quayle's performance in the 1992 Vice Presidential debates is any factor, he might have been shifting to a new strategy that was similar to Bush II. Keep on the attack while brushing over issues.

The big problem with Quayle is that he lacked institutional support. Despite the shift in %s between these groups, the Republican base can be divided into four groups: social cons, fiscal hawks, foreign policy hawks, and big business. Quayle doesn't appeal to any of those categories, while Dole would have the support of business and fiscal conservatives. He would also placate the other groups as he did in OTL in 1996. Quayle would have a hard time getting the backing of business or foreign policy experts, who can really help a candidate out.
 
The same people that wanted George W Bush heading their ticket 4 years later?

Quayle and Bush II were similar in intellectual curiosity, but Bush II was certainly more dogmatic in ideology and temperament. However, Bush II didn't have the albatross of tens of thousands of late night comedy jokes hanging around his neck when he pursued the nomination.

NOBODY is going to want him to get the nomination. Period. With Dole, the nomination is his to lose. Quayle may run, but he'll get clobbered in the primaries.

Pretty much what Matt and Nachos said. Quayle pretty much fucked himself out of any slim chance he had of getting the presidency by being James Danforth Quayle, media buffoon and wingnut.
 
Top