What if 1992 Democratic nominee Governor Bill Clinton of Arkansas would have selected Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts as his running mate and vice president, instead of Senator Al Gore of Tennessee for the United States Presidential Election of 1992? I remember reading that had Clinton had followed the tradition of balancing the ticket regionally and selected a running mate from the north that he would have won more of the popular vote, but wouldn't that decrease his margins in the South? Could Al Gore win re-election in the United States Senate Election in Tennessee of 1996? How would Vice President John Kerry have fared against Governor George W. Bush of Texas in the United States Presidential Election of 2000? If Kerry won, who would be the Republican Party's nominee for President in the United States Presidential Election of 2004? If Kerry lost, who would be the Democratic Party's nominee for President in 2004?
WI: Vice President John Kerry (1993-2001)
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
Okay, Kerry’s a capable individual, and we basically accelerate his run for president by four years.
I like it!
I like it!
Philip
Donor
Could Kerry overcome the baggage of Dukakis? Seems like an easy punching bag for the Republicans.
Gore won the 1990 Senate election with better then 67% of the vote. He should win in 96 with ease.
Much would depend on how he performed as VP. Gore spent much of his vice presidency defending the Clinton administration's military interventions, especially in the lead up to Operation Desert Fox and NATO intervention in the Balkans. Gore made use of his strong position on defense in his campaign. It was an effective approach. It forced the Bush campaign to defend its foreign affairs experience and may have been the deciding factor to name former SecDef Cheney as the VP candidate.
Would Kerry do the same? Would he be believable in Gore's role explaining the use of US military strength? It would clash with much of his previous career? Could he honestly advocate for Desert Fox after voting against Desert Storm? (Gore was one of 10 Democratic senators to vote for Senate Joint Resolution 2.) The campaign is going to have to come up with some way to address this. If I were a Democratic candidate in the primary at the time, I would paint Kerry as Dukakis 2.0. The Republicans would pick up on this.
Gore won the 1990 Senate election with better then 67% of the vote. He should win in 96 with ease.
Much would depend on how he performed as VP. Gore spent much of his vice presidency defending the Clinton administration's military interventions, especially in the lead up to Operation Desert Fox and NATO intervention in the Balkans. Gore made use of his strong position on defense in his campaign. It was an effective approach. It forced the Bush campaign to defend its foreign affairs experience and may have been the deciding factor to name former SecDef Cheney as the VP candidate.
Would Kerry do the same? Would he be believable in Gore's role explaining the use of US military strength? It would clash with much of his previous career? Could he honestly advocate for Desert Fox after voting against Desert Storm? (Gore was one of 10 Democratic senators to vote for Senate Joint Resolution 2.) The campaign is going to have to come up with some way to address this. If I were a Democratic candidate in the primary at the time, I would paint Kerry as Dukakis 2.0. The Republicans would pick up on this.
For John Kerry's running mate in 2000, I was thinking he would select either Richard Gephardt, Bob Graham, or Tom Harkin. All are experienced politicians that balance the ticket regionally.
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
About Kosovo in 1999 Kerry said, “The choice of nothing nothing is absolutely unacceptable.”
https://books.google.com/books?id=P...q="in the case of Kosovo, kerry said"&f=false
And Kosovo as well as a significantly improved situation in Northern Ireland counts among the Clinton administration’s foreign policy successes. VP Kerry does go into the 2000 with some foreign policy credentials.
Now, the bar swearing crowd, so to speak (!) (!) has viewed the Democrats as “weak” on defense since Eugene McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy in 1968 (?), since the Pike and Church committees critical of the CIA in 1975 (?), since the Panama Canal Treaty around 1978 (?)
So, yeah, it could be a heck of an interesting election.
https://books.google.com/books?id=P...q="in the case of Kosovo, kerry said"&f=false
And Kosovo as well as a significantly improved situation in Northern Ireland counts among the Clinton administration’s foreign policy successes. VP Kerry does go into the 2000 with some foreign policy credentials.
Now, the bar swearing crowd, so to speak (!) (!) has viewed the Democrats as “weak” on defense since Eugene McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy in 1968 (?), since the Pike and Church committees critical of the CIA in 1975 (?), since the Panama Canal Treaty around 1978 (?)
So, yeah, it could be a heck of an interesting election.
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
just for the record . . .
I personally didn’t like some of the way we went about things in Kosovo. We really beat the war drum against Slobodan Milosevic saying we were going to keep bombing until ‘He’ did x, y, or z . . If we are saying the guy’s a moral monster, why are we putting so much power into his hands? The answer is that public ultimatums are for domestic consumption here in the U.S., not because they’re likely to work particularly well.
The alternative is to target particular military units which have attacked civilian areas, sometimes in the last 12 hours, sometimes in the last day and a half. We’re not going to give an exact time and thereby tip our hand. One advantage with this approach is that you might see military units delaying on carrying out orders.
Plus, we did a pretty poor job on the rebuilding.
I personally didn’t like some of the way we went about things in Kosovo. We really beat the war drum against Slobodan Milosevic saying we were going to keep bombing until ‘He’ did x, y, or z . . If we are saying the guy’s a moral monster, why are we putting so much power into his hands? The answer is that public ultimatums are for domestic consumption here in the U.S., not because they’re likely to work particularly well.
The alternative is to target particular military units which have attacked civilian areas, sometimes in the last 12 hours, sometimes in the last day and a half. We’re not going to give an exact time and thereby tip our hand. One advantage with this approach is that you might see military units delaying on carrying out orders.
Plus, we did a pretty poor job on the rebuilding.
Last edited:
The Yugoslavian interventions were a stellar success compared to every intervention since.
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
I assume you’re talking about the invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. And I tend to agree that Bosnia, Kosovo, etc. worked a heck of a lot better.
But because our journalism is so patchy (and I’ll say patchy instead of shitty) it’s really hard to tell for sure!
I think as the former United States Senator from Massachusetts, Vice President Kerry could win New Hampshire easily. The question might be the other swing states, such as New Mexico, Florida, Iowa, Ohio, and Nevada.
I wonder, who would replace Kerry as a Senator from Massachusetts? Would Bill Weld appoint a Republican, Paul Cellucci maybe? If Cellucci or some Republican are appointed, would they seek election in their own right or just act as a temporary placeholder?
I don't recall when they did it, but Massachusetts is a state which bars the governor from naming a fill-in senator if I recall correctly.
That law was made in 2004, when the Massachusetts State Legislature sought to prevent Mitt Romney from appointing a Republican to replace a President-elect John Kerry. Ted Kennedy made a special request for a replacement before he died that the state legislature allowed. Deval Patrick also appointed Mo Cowan to Kerry's Senate seat after Kerry resigned to serve as Secretary of State.
Last edited:
I'm not sure if the announcement of Kerry as Bill Clinton's running mate and vice presidential nominee would have given them enough time to deliberate such a law, but they would probably hold a United States Senate Special Election in Massachusetts of November 1994 for Kerry's Senate seat.
And Romney could potentially win that open Senate seat, but if he loses in the United States Senate Election in Massachusetts of 1996, he'd be the Scott Brown of the 1990s.
Ambassador to New Zealand under a future Republican president?
(I know what you actually mean)Probably Ambassador to France or Canada. Romney did spend time in France as a missionary and speaks a little French. Massachusetts is somewhat close to Ontario and Quebec (only separated by Upstate New York, Vermont, and New Hampshire).Ambassador to New Zealand under a future Republican president?
Last edited: