WI: Jerry Brown Doesn't Make His "Jesse Jackson" Gaffe?

According to Wikipedia:

As the press focused on the primaries in New York and Wisconsin, which were both to be held on the same day, Brown, who had taken the lead in polls in both states, made a gaffe: he announced to an audience of various leaders of New York City's Jewish community that, if nominated, he would consider the Reverend Jesse Jackson as a vice-presidential candidate. Jackson, who had made a pair of comments that were perceived to be anti-Semitic about Jews in general and New York City's Jews in particular while running for president in 1984, was still despised in Jewish communities. Jackson also had ties to Louis Farrakhan, who said Judaism was a "gutter religion," and with Yasir Arafat, the chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization. Brown's polling numbers suffered. On April 7, he lost narrowly to Bill Clinton in Wisconsin (37–34), and dramatically in New York (41–26).

What if Brown hadn't made that comment? He likely would have won Wisconsin and narrowed the gap in New York without it. Does that give him enough momentum to drag the race out longer, or even win the nomination? If he wins the nomination, can he take the Presidency? I think Bush would have had a better chance against Moonbeam than Slick Willy, but you never know.
 
The primary season becomes grueling, and the Democratic Establishment shits itself when it seems Brown might take it.
 
Why do they hate Brown so much?

He's a little bit nuts, I have to say. I like Moonbeam, but he's a bit of a hippy, even now. He somehow combines being the most stereotypically Californian politician ever to reach national prominence, while also being a fiscal conservative.
 
Why do they hate Brown so much?

Brown's an interesting figure and politically he has been all over the map. He started out as a centrist proto-New Dem, then became this New Age leftist in his later years as governor. By that point he became seen as way out of the mainstream, and when he ran for president in '92, it was an anti-establishment, populist campaign with a hodge-podge of left-wing and right-wing positions. After his loss to Clinton he briefly lurched to the right, even hosting a RW-radio show for sometime, before reemerging as a more mainstream figure and serving as Oakland Mayor, CA AG, and now governor again.

Point is, in 1992, he was seen as very out-of-the-mainstream and unelectable.
 
Brown's an interesting figure and politically he has been all over the map. He started out as a centrist proto-New Dem, then became this New Age leftist in his later years as governor. By that point he became seen as way out of the mainstream, and when he ran for president in '92, it was an anti-establishment, populist campaign with a hodge-podge of left-wing and right-wing positions. After his loss to Clinton he briefly lurched to the right, even hosting a RW-radio show for sometime, before reemerging as a more mainstream figure and serving as Oakland Mayor, CA AG, and now governor again.

Point is, in 1992, he was seen as very out-of-the-mainstream and unelectable.

I don't think he would have been unelectable. Even if some of the more socially conservative voters fled Perot for Bush, I think that Brown's resistance to NAFTA and his support for a BBA would have made him appealing to independents. He also had plenty of left-wing positions on environmentalism and green energy, which would have made him a shoe-in for the left of the party.
 
The problem with Brown is that he is too unpredictable. As previously stated, his radical ideological swings make him anathema to the Democratic establishment. Compare him to Clinton. Both were political moderates (in the sense that they weren't party-line liberals, nor were they conservatives). When you look at Clinton you see some ideological consistency. He was a progressive who believed it was time for more moderate, post-Great Society, policies to alleviate many age-old problems. Then look at Brown. While he was a social liberal and environmentalist, he was also very, very fiscally conservative and anti-tax. His anti-NAFTA message may have resonated with organized labor but the rest of his views didn't. Essentially, his hodge podge populism makes him too much to stomach for the DNC, DLC, or anybody else in the party hierarchy. They throw money and institutionalized support behind Clinton, and he ends up winning in the end.
 
How did I miss this?

I've toyed with the idea of Brown winning the Democratic nomination in 1992 and somehow getting into the White House but in my research I've run into pretty much the same problems as those mentioned above. That being said I'd like to do some more research on the early part of Brown's campaign.

Perhaps if he campaigned more effectively earlier he'd find himself in a better position to win?

Also what if Al Gore's son didn't get injured and he ended up throwing his hat into the presidential ring in 1992? Would that split the vote enough for the populist Brown to grab a few more contests?

Hate to use this...but how about a major scandal for the Clinton campaign?

The unfortunate thing is, I think, looking at the numbers, unless Brown gains a huge number of votes Clinton's still got the nomination, though it's going to be more painful. Even if he wins all the contests in which he came in 2nd, Clinton's still got the edge and come convention time the establishment will gang up to beat Brown. The question is how to get the establishment to suck it up and nominate him anyway.

Once he's got the nomination it's pretty simple to have him win...just have Perot do a bit better at drawing votes away from Bush 41 and wham Moonbeam's in the White House!
 
How did I miss this?

I've toyed with the idea of Brown winning the Democratic nomination in 1992 and somehow getting into the White House but in my research I've run into pretty much the same problems as those mentioned above. That being said I'd like to do some more research on the early part of Brown's campaign.

Perhaps if he campaigned more effectively earlier he'd find himself in a better position to win?

Also what if Al Gore's son didn't get injured and he ended up throwing his hat into the presidential ring in 1992? Would that split the vote enough for the populist Brown to grab a few more contests?

Hate to use this...but how about a major scandal for the Clinton campaign?

The unfortunate thing is, I think, looking at the numbers, unless Brown gains a huge number of votes Clinton's still got the nomination, though it's going to be more painful. Even if he wins all the contests in which he came in 2nd, Clinton's still got the edge and come convention time the establishment will gang up to beat Brown. The question is how to get the establishment to suck it up and nominate him anyway.

Once he's got the nomination it's pretty simple to have him win...just have Perot do a bit better at drawing votes away from Bush 41 and wham Moonbeam's in the White House!

A gigantic scandal for the Clinton campaign, preferably after Paul Tsongas drops from the campaign, would likely mean a Brown win, especially if Brown offered Tsongas the VP spot.
 
The rescission favors the Democrat. So it is possible Brown could win. I wonder if he could have gotten a health care program through?
 
Interesting!!!!!!!


In otl, Tsongas did rather well in the NY primary despite his having suspended his campaign the previous month... Tsongas had seriously considered re-entering the campaign after scoring second place in that contest. (For my own crib sheet, it was otl Clinton 41 percent, Tsongas 29 percent, Brown 26 percent.)

So, with the above-noted potential point-of-departure, let's say Brown goes from 26 percent to maybe 34 percent, Tsongas to 32 percent, and Clinton down to 32 percent with non-disgruntled Jewish voters trying out Brown or Tsongas. With Tsongas shockingly close to having won NY, he decides after all to remain in the contest.

The three-way race has a different feel to it than Clinton versus The Crazy Guy. It becomes Sincere Moderate, Slick Moderate, and Labor-Loving Populist, and, hey presto, it's going to look a lot like New York (more or less) with Thoughtful Moderate-to-Liberal Voters splitting (more or less) between Tsongas and Clinton. The remainder of the primary voters should include a fair number of neglected-feeling labor-fans and angry progressives who might get more excited about voting seeing that Brown might actually have a chance.

The convention will be hell.

If you think Bill Clinton was a touch bitter at times watching his wife lose to Obama, (please watch it, it is SO good! watch it with music from Cape Fear playing in background, Bubba gets mad!!) Bill seeing the nomination going to Brown will be fuming bright indigo.

This means that Brown will select Tsongas as his VP nominee.

Perot's apparent vendetta against Bush has, I think, precious little to do with whoever the Democrats nominate. (So I'm saying, with zero evidence either way.) Perot runs, runs hard, etc.

The general election synergy has enough mutual admiration between Brown and Perot that the burning down of Bush's metaphorical house is almost incidental. Perot times his drop-out perfectly, and very compellingly endorses Brown with strong, specific and detailed arguments.

Brown wins it.
 
Top