WI: Newt Gingrich Defeated in 1990

In 1990, Newt Gingrich won re-election in what was essentially a tie, beating back his Democratic opponent David Worley 50.3 to 49.7. Suppose that Gingrich loses in 1990. What happens from there?
 
He also had a close call in the 1992 GOP primary (the Democrats in the state legislature having given him a basically new district): http://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail.html?RaceID=207819

IMO the GOP would have taken over the House in 1994 regardless of who was its candidate for Speaker. It was primarily Clinton's unpopularity and the feeling that the Democrats had controlled Congress too long, *not* the Contract with America, which accounted for the GOP victory (indeed, polls showed that most voters had not heard of the Contract). What the Contract did was to provide a post-victory road map for House Republicans. Even in that respect, though, its significance should not be exaggerated; it consisted largely of things that House Republicans had been advocating for years.
 
I agree with David T that the GOP still retakes Congress in 1994. Without Newt though, Bob Michel still retires, so that means Dick Army or Tom Delay become Speaker of the House. I shudder to think what would happen, especially if Delay becomes Speaker.
 

Minty_Fresh

Banned
I agree with David T that the GOP still retakes Congress in 1994. Without Newt though, Bob Michel still retires, so that means Dick Army or Tom Delay become Speaker of the House. I shudder to think what would happen, especially if Delay becomes Speaker.
Delay as a speaker would cause a problem for the Conservative movement in that the two leaders it speaks of having since 1980 are Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich, with other Republican leadership variously guilty of ideological sins and not worthy of leadership status, like Bush II supporting No Child Left Behind, Steel Tariffs, and Medicare Part D, or Bush I raising taxes, or Boehner's Cromnibus compromise, etc.

Delay was in my view a very smart politician and someone who was good at legislation. He was also blatantly sleazy in a way that Gingrich wasn't, believe it or not. Delay would likely go down on corruption charges at some point. Dealmaking culture would be disgraced much earlier, and the Republican legislative successes of the '90s would be seen in a different light entirely. This would probably lead to an earlier inclination of the Tea Party, which was a movement to purify the right on the grassroots terms, and would lead to the Republican hard turn right earlier on. Perhaps Mike Pence would emerge as a leader on economic issues while Tom Tancredo would be a populist with Presidential chances, based off of the timeline available.
 
Delay as a speaker would cause a problem for the Conservative movement in that the two leaders it speaks of having since 1980 are Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich, with other Republican leadership variously guilty of ideological sins and not worthy of leadership status, like Bush II supporting No Child Left Behind, Steel Tariffs, and Medicare Part D, or Bush I raising taxes, or Boehner's Cromnibus compromise, etc.

The Conservative Republicans tried to drive Gingrich out of the Speakership several times during the 1990s because they felt he compromised too much with Clinton and they finally got their chance in 1998 when impeachment backfired and the GOP lost seats in the midterms as a result. Outside of a select few, I've heard very few conservatives speak of Gingrich as one of the Great Conservative leaders since 1980. On top of that, Moderates in the party and everyone outside it thought Newt was nuts. The Campaign of 94 was the Peak of his Political Career. Once the Government shut down in '95, his career started to fall fast. I do agree that Delay would be problematic, for the Country and the GOP.

Delay was in my view a very smart politician and someone who was good at legislation. He was also blatantly sleazy in a way that Gingrich wasn't, believe it or not. Delay would likely go down on corruption charges at some point. Dealmaking culture would be disgraced much earlier, and the Republican legislative successes of the '90s would be seen in a different light entirely. This would probably lead to an earlier inclination of the Tea Party, which was a movement to purify the right on the grassroots terms, and would lead to the Republican hard turn right earlier on. Perhaps Mike Pence would emerge as a leader on economic issues while Tom Tancredo would be a populist with Presidential chances, based off of the timeline available.

I do believe Delay is sleazier than Nutty Newt, just look at his record. That's why, while I'm no Gingrich fan, I'm glad Delay never became Speaker (although Hastert proved to be pretty vile to). If it's true that Delay being Speaker early causes an earlier Tea Party Movement and a further movement to the alt Right, that could mean that the Democrats are a stronger party in the late 90s and 2000s than they were OTL, so I guess that's a plus (but not enough of a plus to where I'd want it to happen, lord knows what would happen in a Delay run House of Represenatives). It's a sad state of affairs for the GOP that of the four Speakers of the House that they've had since 1995, Gingrich was the best of them.
 

EMTSATX

Banned
My God, can you imagine The Hammer as speaker? I grew up in Sugarland and met him in at boy scouts. He was scary.
 

Minty_Fresh

Banned
My God, can you imagine The Hammer as speaker? I grew up in Sugarland and met him in at boy scouts. He was scary.
That was kind of the point. If he was still around as the Whip, you might see a less rebellious GOP House rank and file.
 
Top