WI: Gore vs Buchanan in 1996 after Clinton assassination?

I was looking through some old threads and found one timeline discussing a Clinton assassination in 1997 by an anti-abortion extremist, and that got me thinking about how Clinton was a huge admirer of JFK, and how eerie it would be to recreate the 1963-64 assassination-election events in the mid 90's. Would the 1996 election be a huge landslide like 1964 for the Democrats, and possibly have them winning back Congress? Does Perot decide to run again in 96 like OTL? Does Gore run again in 2000? How does this change history?

For this timeline there will be two changes to the OTL within a period of a few months. The first is in late 1995 President Clinton is assassinated by far-right militant Eric Robert Rudolph (the Olympic Park Bomber in OTL), and the second is Bob Dole suffers a health scare on the eve of the 1996 Iowa Caucus, serious enough for him to be hospitalized for a few days, but he doesn't drop out of the race, and is back on the campaign trail in a matter of weeks.

Al Gore is sworn in as the 43rd President of the United States in late 1995 and decides to run in 1996, he is unopposed in the primaries. After Bob Doles health scare, Buchanan narrowly wins the Iowa Caucus, then wins New Hampshire with a slightly bigger margin than OTL. The early momentum, coupled with the worry about Doles age and health, gives Buchanan a path to the nomination.

Gore chooses Senator Bob Graham from Florida as his running mate, this will help in a big swing state. Also, since Chiles is Governor at the time, the Democrats wouldn't lose the Senate seat in a Gore victory. I can't decide who Buchanan would pick as his running mate. Any thoughts?
 
Against Pat Buchanan, Gore just might win every state, especially if the economy is decent, as it was historically in 1996. Buchanan was pretty much an out-and-out Fascist.
 
Buchanan would have to pick a moderate for VP, maybe Powell if he'll accept the offer. Gore would still win and probably face Bush in 2000 if still eligible to run. His chances are about the same as in OTL.
 
Buchanan would have to pick a moderate for VP, maybe Powell if he'll accept the offer. Gore would still win and probably face Bush in 2000 if still eligible to run. His chances are about the same as in OTL.

Powell didn't want to run for President that election, even though he looked like a front-runner for the nomination during 1995, so I don't think he'd take the VP slot on the ticket.

Gore would be eligible to run again in 2000 since he only served a little more than one year of Clinton's term as President. If he had served more than two years of Clinton's term then he'd be limited to just one more term of his own in office.

I'd say that Gore would fare better in 2000 than OTL. I could still see Bush defeating McCain for the nomination. But without the Clinton sex scandal he wouldn't be able to run on "restoring integrity to the White House." Even though the dot-com bubble burst in the spring of that year, unemployment was still hovering around 4%, there were job gains the whole year up until the election except for a single month where the losses were minimal (around 10 thousand jobs I think). Gore would also have the advantage of incumbency. It wouldn't be a landslide like 1996 against Buchanan, but I could see Gore winning about 51-52% of the popular vote, carrying all the OTL states plus Florida and New Hampshire, with Missouri, Ohio, Nevada, and Tennessee being really close. So 295 EV's on the low end, and 342 EV's on the high end.
 
Buchanan would not get the '96 GOP nomination. If not Dole, then Lugar, Gramm, or even Forbes, but not Buchanan. Maybe Kemp, McCain or G.W. Bush enter the race.
Who did Gore choose as the new VP in '95, and if not Graham, why was that person dropped?
 
Buchanan would not get the '96 GOP nomination. If not Dole, then Lugar, Gramm, or even Forbes, but not Buchanan. Maybe Kemp, McCain or G.W. Bush enter the race.
Who did Gore choose as the new VP in '95, and if not Graham, why was that person dropped?

Buchanan won the first two Caucuses in Alaska and Louisiana, then under this scenario he also wins Iowa, then wins the New Hampshire primary with a bigger margin. That's the first four contests in a row for Buchanan. Forbes definitely still wins Delaware next, and I have Buchanan finishing second in Arizona behind Forbes instead of Dole. The whole point of Dole staying in the race after his health scare was so he could keep pulling votes away from others, albeit at a reduced level, so that Buchanan wins primaries in the 30-40% range. Next, Dole and Buchanan split the Dakotas, then Buchanan wins South Carolina. So out of the first 9 contests Buchanan has won 6, Dole 1, and Forbes 2. It's definitely possible for Buchanan to get the nomination under the right circumstances.

As for Gore's VP, I don't have him selecting one during the remainder of that term since the vacancy will occur in late November/early December 1995, and they'd have to go through the whole process of confirmation. But if it's important to you then he appoints Graham in early 1996, and since Graham is a Senator the confirmation goes through easily. Chiles is still the Governor of Florida so he appoints a Democrat to fill the vacancy.
 
Buchanan won the first two Caucuses in Alaska and Louisiana, then under this scenario he also wins Iowa, then wins the New Hampshire primary with a bigger margin. That's the first four contests in a row for Buchanan. Forbes definitely still wins Delaware next, and I have Buchanan finishing second in Arizona behind Forbes instead of Dole. The whole point of Dole staying in the race after his health scare was so he could keep pulling votes away from others, albeit at a reduced level, so that Buchanan wins primaries in the 30-40% range. Next, Dole and Buchanan split the Dakotas, then Buchanan wins South Carolina. So out of the first 9 contests Buchanan has won 6, Dole 1, and Forbes 2. It's definitely possible for Buchanan to get the nomination under the right circumstances.

As for Gore's VP, I don't have him selecting one during the remainder of that term since the vacancy will occur in late November/early December 1995, and they'd have to go through the whole process of confirmation. But if it's important to you then he appoints Graham in early 1996, and since Graham is a Senator the confirmation goes through easily. Chiles is still the Governor of Florida so he appoints a Democrat to fill the vacancy.

YOu combine some of Buchanan's red meat social policies with FOrbes fiscal policies, you could get some good synergy.

Lots of ideas there. THings to run for, and try to get control of the media cycle.

Dole seems old for a second slot. Although so was Cheney...

Might help with the moderates and the Old Guard, or at least might show a desire to build some bridges.
 
Imho Gore would probably win convincingly against anyone in 1996 if he takes over from Clinton upon the latters assasination.

If Buchanan is the nominee, he probably rivals Landen and Mondale for the worst electeral defeat in a presidencial contest. Gore has the economy going for him, along with the sympathy boost from Clinton's death-even conservatives might be reluctant to voat for Buchanan in these circumstances, with a centrist like Gore in the WH.

Come 2000 I think Gore wins again, though it'd be closer. I'm not so sure Bush is the 2000 nominee though-if Buchanan loses big in the previous cycle, might the GOP be more tempted to turn to someone more moderate? I realise that Bush is nowhere near as extreme as Buchanan, but he's still pretty conservative. Perhaps all Bush needs to do in the primaries is to make some moderate noises and he wrapps up the nomination anyway.

Asuming Bush lost in 2000, who'd be the GOP's nominee in 2004? Mccaine? If 9 11 still happens I think he'd be the natural choice and he stands a decent chance of winning.
 
Top