What if Bob Dole doesn't run in 1996

[Sabin]

What happens if Bob Dole doesn't run in 1996? Dole's speechwriter Richard Norton Smith confided that Bob Dole told him after the fact that he never should have run in 1996, that 1988 was his best shot. Let's say Bob Dole sees the writing on the wall and just dedicates himself to being Senate Majority Leader. How does 1996 turnout.

Washington Journal: Richard Norton Smith Discusses Bob Dole's Legacy

Author and presidential historian Richard Norton Smith, the founding director of the Robert J. Dole Institute of Politics at the University of Kansas, talked about Bob Dole's legacy.

www.c-span.org

Bob Dole might have been the runner up in 1988 but Pat Buchanan was the runner up in 1992, and a surprising one at that. He came in very close in Iowa to Dole and beat him in New Hampshire. Is there enough right-wing support within the Republican party in 1996 for Pat Buchanan to take the nomination? Is there any other mainstreamers that could've done better both running (Lamar Alexander, Phil Gramm) or not running (Pete Wilson, Arlen Specter, Newt Gingrich) or does someone like Steve Forbes coalesce more support? Or maybe Colin Powell is desperately drafted by his party to save them from Buchanan?

Let's say that the nomination is Pat Buchanan. What does that do to Ross Perot considering both of them are protectionist/anti-NAFTA? Is there a world where a Buchanan candidacy forces Perot out? Would a Buchanan vs. Clinton two person candidacy result in a Clinton landslide or would it be closer than we might think?

 

[Comte de Geneve]

Why not Jack Kemp. Please, anybody but Buck. He is not going to get the nomination. But I think Clinton wins no matter who is the nominee.

 

[JDGiant]

The establishment unites around someone, probably Wilson or Alexander. They likely end up beating Buchanan for the nomination.

If Buchanan pulls it off, then you likely have an earlier 'realignment' in certain states.

 

[Sabin]

Fun thought:
- Whomever jumps in the race in Bob Dole's stead just isn't strong enough to amass the support needed to keep Pat Buchanan at bay. It's a repeat 2016. He wins Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.
- Party elders freak out. They do NOT want Pat Buchanan as their standard bearer. The threat of Buchanan is enough to push Colin Powell into the fray.
- Despite a late, unprepared start, Colin Powell keeps Buchanan at bay, and wins in a brokered convention, selects a Pro-Life running mate to keep Buchanan from bolting. Maybe Connie Mack, John Kasich, or John Danforth. It would get really interesting if he bucks party elders and chooses Christine Todd Whitman because he wants the GOP to be a big tent party.
- Either way, Buchanan feels robbed and that Powell isn't sufficiently Pro-Life. He runs under the Constitution Party platform or his own "Conservative Party."
- Both Buchanan and Perot run anti-NAFTA campaigns. Perot's Reform Party run suffers greatly because this is clearly Buchanan's moment in the spotlight.
- Colin Powell runs an unprepared, uninspired campaign that sees few policy details and major differences from Bill Clinton.
- Polling for Buchanan remains defiantly high due to fractured party support for Powell.
- Buchanan appears on the debate stage alongside Bill Clinton and Colin Powell. Powell is seen as the clear loser of all three debates. Bill Clinton is framed as the winner but Buchanan over-performs expectations and polling.
- As debates go on, Powell can barely hide his contempt for Buchanan while Clinton remains above the fray. Pundits suspect that the Powell-Buchanan schism will be brutal for down-ballot elections.
- Bill Clinton wins in an expected landslide, topping 500 electoral votes. Democrats take back the House of Representatives and the Senate.
- Pat Buchanan and the Constitution Party picks up a handful of plains states: Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Kansas, maybe some of Nebraska, etc. Colin Powell becomes the first major party candidate to win no electoral votes.
- Ross Perot's Reform Party has a disastrous turnout and is functionally dead. Perot launches several lawsuits about being excluded from the debates.
- Despite his victory (this time over 50%), once again Bill Clinton is seen as the lucky beneficiary of a three party split.

 

[SlideAway]

Realistically, Dole not running probably induces some other potential candidates to run. Several considered but passed including Dan Quayle, James Baker, Bill Bennett, and Dick Cheney, and Jack Kemp. Hard to say if any of them -- or which one -- would have drawn more establishment support and filled Dole's place.

Of the candidates who did run OTL, Lamar Alexander probably stood the best chance of winning the nomination after Dole. (Had Dole dropped out after New Hampshire - as he nearly did - Alexander probably wins the nomination.)

 

[David T]

Realistically, Dole not running probably induces some other potential candidates to run. Several considered but passed including Dan Quayle, James Baker, Bill Bennett, and Dick Cheney, and Jack Kemp. Hard to say if any of them -- or which one -- would have drawn more establishment support and filled Dole's place.

Of the candidates who did run OTL, Lamar Alexander probably stood the best chance of winning the nomination after Dole. (Had Dole dropped out after New Hampshire - as he nearly did - Alexander probably wins the nomination.)

On the subject of Quayle, an old post of mine:

***

if we are talking about candidates who might jump in the race if Dole wasn't in it, we shouldn't forget Dan Quayle. A Harris Poll in January 1995 showed him in second place behind Dole, who had 29 percent. "Following Dole was former Vice President Dan Quayle with 20 percent, former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Colin Powell with 14 percent and former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Jack Kemp with 10 percent. None of the other potential candidates made it into double-digits." https://www.upi.com/Archives/1995/01/02/Poll-Dole-still-96-GOP-front-runner/8372789022800/ Granted, early polls are largely tests of name recognition, but the fact remains that Quayle was not a laughingstock *to Republicans* and could have been a serious contender for the nomination. (I think his chances of winning in November were minimal, but that's another matter--and even in November I'm not sure he would do much worse than Dole. With Perot in decline, just getting the GOP base vote probably gets you to around 40 percent.)

 

[David T]

If we assume (probably unnrealistically) that there are no additional candidates, I think Alexander has the best chance. In OTL, he finished a close third in both Iowa and New Hampshire, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_1996 and my guess is that in this ATL he would get enough of Dole's OTL voters to win both these early events, which would make him the clear front-runner.

 

[Montgomerie Ward]

Realistically, Dole not running probably induces some other potential candidates to run. Several considered but passed including Dan Quayle, James Baker, Bill Bennett, and Dick Cheney, and Jack Kemp. Hard to say if any of them -- or which one -- would have drawn more establishment support and filled Dole's place.

You could probably add John McCain to the list. He most likely wouldn't win the nomination, but an unsuccessful run in 1996 would build name recognition for him to win the nomination in 2000.

 

[Vidal]

You could probably add John McCain to the list. He most likely wouldn't win the nomination, but an unsuccessful run in 1996 would build name recognition for him to win the nomination in 2000.

Possibly, but the Keating Five scandal still looms

 

[SlideAway]

On the subject of Quayle, an old post of mine:

***

if we are talking about candidates who might jump in the race if Dole wasn't in it, we shouldn't forget Dan Quayle. A Harris Poll in January 1995 showed him in second place behind Dole, who had 29 percent. "Following Dole was former Vice President Dan Quayle with 20 percent, former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Colin Powell with 14 percent and former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Jack Kemp with 10 percent. None of the other potential candidates made it into double-digits." https://www.upi.com/Archives/1995/01/02/Poll-Dole-still-96-GOP-front-runner/8372789022800/ Granted, early polls are largely tests of name recognition, but the fact remains that Quayle was not a laughingstock *to Republicans* and could have been a serious contender for the nomination. (I think his chances of winning in November were minimal, but that's another matter--and even in November I'm not sure he would do much worse than Dole. With Perot in decline, just getting the GOP base vote probably gets you to around 40 percent.)

Quayle also had quite a bit of support with the Christian Right. Quayle OTL did form an exploratory committee but backed out early, partly for health reasons (he suffered a pulmonary embolism in the fall of 94) but also because of fundraising challenges. If Dole were out of the picture though, Quayle may well run.

I think between electability concerns and his harping on "values" issues (as he did OTL preparing for a bid), eastern establishmentarian types might have backed an alternative. Maybe someone like Tom Kean Sr (who considered running) or Pete Wilson (whose OTL bid went nowhere). But I suspect that a pro-choice stance probably keeps them from winning.

(Since it also comes up, I have a hard time seeing Powell's decision to opt out changing in this scenario.)

 

[marktaha]

Clinton wins any way.