WI: Clinton Taps Tom Harkin in 1992

[Amadeus]

What if, instead of picking Al Gore, Bill Clinton taps Iowa Senator Tom Harkin to be his VP? Does this impact the 1992 presidential race? Would Harkin have beaten George W. Bush in 2000?

 

[Hydrons (Retired Account)]

What if, instead of picking Al Gore, Bill Clinton taps Iowa Senator Tom Harkin to be his VP? Does this impact the 1992 presidential race? Would Harkin have beaten George W. Bush in 2000?

Harkin could bring better margins in the Midwest for Clinton, but I dont see his candidacy affecting much of the 1992 election, except for Tennessee, Georgia, and Kentucky remaining red, which would still give Clinton a solid 338 electoral votes. As for 2000, I think Harkin would have had greater margins in the Midwest, but win basically each of the same states Gore won in 2000. I don't see someone like Harkin expanding on Gore's margins. Perhaps he could pick someone like Howard Dean as his running mate and win New Hampshire, but that would be his best shot.

 

[Montgomerie Ward]

Terry Branstad gets to appoint Harkin's successor to the United States Senate, and there is a 1994 United States Senate Special Election in Iowa, which is won by a Republican. Branstad would probably appoint either Tom Tauke or Jim Ross Lightfoot, and they go on to win election in their own right in 1994 and 1996. For a running mate in 2000, I think Harkin would nominate either Bob Graham (who delivers Florida to him) or Bill Bradley.

 

[GeographyDude]

. . . Would Harkin have beaten George W. Bush in 2000?

Gore had some deficiencies in 2000. In at least one of the debates, he came across as disrespectful to Gov. Bush, and no, it did not play to Gore's advantage.

If 9/11 happens nine years into Democratic leadership, the Democrats are blamed at least a medium amount more.

 

[Amadeus]

Gore had some deficiencies in 2000. In at least one of the debates, he came across as disrespectful to Gov. Bush, and no, it did not play to Gore's advantage.

If 9/11 happens nine years into Democratic leadership, the Democrats are blamed at least a medium amount more.

Harkin was a Midwestern populist, which could cut both ways in 2000. On the one hand, running as a man of the people with support from labor could appeal to working class/middle class voters. On the other hand, Harkin was an unrepentant liberal. If Harkin campaigns with Clinton and chooses the right running mate (ideally Bob Graham of Florida) he could win. But I do think it'd still be a close election.