AHC; President Ann Richards

Your challenge is to make Ann Richards President of the United States. I think your best shot for this is to have Clinton decide to pick her instead of Gore as his VP, but what do you guys think?
 
Your challenge is to make Ann Richards President of the United States. I think your best shot for this is to have Clinton decide to pick her instead of Gore as his VP, but what do you guys think?
The most frequent way I've seen in this website is her getting elected after a second HW Bush term (it's also the most popular choice of a successor to a Bush second term after Mario Cuomo)
 
Your challenge is to make Ann Richards President of the United States. I think your best shot for this is to have Clinton decide to pick her instead of Gore as his VP, but what do you guys think?

That's most certainly not a good way, given she wasn't on Clinton's shortlist, and in any case you then go into the follow-on of how she becomes president from being VP.

As noted, her most likely opportunity, without a great deal of divergence heavy lifting, is an alternate 96, but that itself has problems attached IMO.
 
Part of the problem is that the Texas governorship was quite a weak office, especially then. A Democratic governor from the south is "yawn" to be expected, and the lack of experience/power will show more than in a Republican who even in 2000 still had a bit of a "wow, a Republican from the South" vibe.

Possibly her winning the Senate seat instead of Kay Bailey Hutchison pushes her high enough and gives enough national exposure that she's on the ticket.
 
Part of the problem is that the Texas governorship was quite a weak office, especially then. A Democratic governor from the south is "yawn" to be expected, and the lack of experience/power will show more than in a Republican who even in 2000 still had a bit of a "wow, a Republican from the South" vibe.

Possibly her winning the Senate seat instead of Kay Bailey Hutchison pushes her high enough and gives enough national exposure that she's on the ticket.

I disagree. I think talks about which state executives have more power is insider baseball that voters don’t pay attention to, and I think her ‘88 convention speech is national exposure enough compared to some who have made previous national bids and been successful
 
I disagree. I think talks about which state executives have more power is insider baseball that voters don’t pay attention to, and I think her ‘88 convention speech is national exposure enough compared to some who have made previous national bids and been successful

Yeah, I agree with this. I think her national spotlight+her perceived good works as a governor of Texas allow her to be the nominee even if she technically has minimal power
 
Dubya was happy to tout his gubernatorial record, so I think that answers any notion of the nature of the Texas gubnorship and nomination issues.

Richards has a bigger issue in just surviving in that post, IMO. Clayton Williams and a decent Libertarian performance eased her into that job in a sunbelt state which was heading in a sunbelt direction. In fact, the last race where the Republicans weren't competitive in a Texas gubernatorial election is.... '74. Twenty years past by '94. And the '86 elections underlines that even in nationally good years for the Democrats, a lot of these sort of states were still fertile ground for the GOP at the state level. There's enough Republican money down thar, and enough realism to GOP prospects in the state by this point to continue that competitive trend, even absent Dubya.

The last Dem nominee not to really break open the south in a nomination contest is arguably Dukakis - though he did very well with Texas Hispanics and the Florida nomination electorate - which, coinciding with Dem southern officeholders still being nominatable, should be good news for them in an alt '96. But in an alt '96, I think the Dem establishment and the donor community will want a very certain, very established, very not-showing-Ann-Richards-Like-Qualities known quantity. And though I know people like to play around with the creative possibilities of divergence, really Al Gore is the unmovable object on that score, one which will suck up so much of the oxygen of those southern contests.
 
Last edited:
Dubya was happy to tout his gubernatorial record, so I think that answers any notion of the nature of the Texas gubnorship and nomination issues.

Richards has a bigger issue in just surviving in that post, IMO. Clayton Williams and a decent Libertarian performance eased her into that job in a sunbelt state which was heading in a sunbelt direction. In fact, the last race where the Republicans weren't competitive in a Texas gubernatorial election is.... '74. Twenty years past by '94. And the '86 elections underlines that even in nationally good years for the Democrats, a lot of these sort of states were still fertile ground for the GOP at the state level. There's enough Republican money down thar, and enough realism to GOP prospects in the state by this point to continue that competitive trend, even absent Dubya.

The last Dem nominee not to really break open the south in a nomination contest is arguably Dukakis - though he did very well with Texas Hispanics and the Florida nomination electorate - which, coinciding with Dem southern officeholders still being nominatable, should be good news for them in an alt '96. But in an alt '96, I think the Dem establishment and the donor community will want a very certain, very established, very not-showing-Ann-Richards-Like-Qualities known quantity. And though I know people like to play around with the creative possibilities of divergence, really Al Gore is the unmovable object on that score, one which will suck up so much of the oxygen of those southern contests.

I think Ann Richards 96 might be a good fit. If it’s say Tsongas/Gore 92 which loses to Bush in 88, then a. Gore is stuck with that loss and b. The Dem base might be clamoring for a protectionist over a free trader like Gore, which would be well for Ann Richards
 
Dubya was happy to tout his gubernatorial record, so I think that answers any notion of the nature of the Texas gubnorship and nomination issues.

Richards has a bigger issue in just surviving in that post, IMO. Clayton Williams and a decent Libertarian performance eased her into that job in a sunbelt state which was heading in a sunbelt direction. In fact, the last race where the Republicans weren't competitive in a Texas gubernatorial election is.... '74. Twenty years past by '94. And the '86 elections underlines that even in nationally good years for the Democrats, a lot of these sort of states were still fertile ground for the GOP at the state level. There's enough Republican money down thar, and enough realism to GOP prospects in the state by this point to continue that competitive trend, even absent Dubya.

The last Dem nominee not to really break open the south in a nomination contest is arguably Dukakis - though he did very well with Texas Hispanics and the Florida nomination electorate - which, coinciding with Dem southern officeholders still being nominatable, should be good news for them in an alt '96. But in an alt '96, I think the Dem establishment and the donor community will want a very certain, very established, very not-showing-Ann-Richards-Like-Qualities known quantity. And though I know people like to play around with the creative possibilities of divergence, really Al Gore is the unmovable object on that score, one which will suck up so much of the oxygen of those southern contests.
But would Al Gore have been the VP nominee in this alt-92? VP nominees from unsuccessful tickets have a sordid history of seeking the Oval Office for themselves. (Gennaro, Ryan, Kaine, Bentsen didn’t bother; Quayle’s 2000 run was pathetic; Dole and Mondale didn’t exactly do stellar; Sargent Shriver was basically never heard from again. Ed Muskie is really the closest any failed VP nom has come)
 
But would Al Gore have been the VP nominee in this alt-92? VP nominees from unsuccessful tickets have a sordid history of seeking the Oval Office for themselves. (Gennaro, Ryan, Kaine, Bentsen didn’t bother; Quayle’s 2000 run was pathetic; Dole and Mondale didn’t exactly do stellar; Sargent Shriver was basically never heard from again. Ed Muskie is really the closest any failed VP nom has come)

Yeah and I think there will be clamoring for young blood on the top of the ticket.
 
But would Al Gore have been the VP nominee in this alt-92? VP nominees from unsuccessful tickets have a sordid history of seeking the Oval Office for themselves. (Gennaro, Ryan, Kaine, Bentsen didn’t bother; Quayle’s 2000 run was pathetic; Dole and Mondale didn’t exactly do stellar; Sargent Shriver was basically never heard from again. Ed Muskie is really the closest any failed VP nom has come)

IMO this is similar to what used to be a theological mainstay with a lot of people on this site back in the day; that the Republicans only ever nominate the runner-up of the previous contest. Which held perfectly until four years ago, when Rick Santorum not only didn't become the nominee, he wasn't even a factor.

So much historical noise, really. Most 'failed' VP nominees are relatively minor figures designed to limit the exposure of a national figure nominee. In '92, this situation was exactly reversed. Al Gore isn't just going to fade into the ether.

What should be borne in mind with '92 is that a Poppy re-election world won't have a mirror onto ours. The conventional wisdom coming out of his re-election will be that the Dems didn't realise that election could be competitive until it was too late, and so they ended up with Bubba Bill or more likely Tsongas, I.E a third-grade candidate out of left-field, instead of one of the big-hitters that many establishmentarians were pining for in 91. Such as Gephardt, or Cuomo, or yes, Al Gore.

You'll end up with an awful, awful lot of people believing that if Gore had been at the top of the ticket, the result would have been different. So no, I don't see his reputation being ruined by being on the bottom of the ticket of a Could Woulda Shudda ex-post-facto campaign; quite the opposite, in fact.

You guys do realise that if the conventional wisdom out of '92 is 'We shouldn't nominate flaky candidates like Paul Tsongas', that's not going to work in favour of someone like Ann Richards, right? Alt-96 isn't going to be '76 II - Outsider Boogaloo.

(You mean Ferraro btw; Holly Gennaro was John McLane's wife )
 
Last edited:
The problem with "Richards in '96" is that due to the poor economy, it would be really difficult for the Dems to lose in 1992 - even with a candidate who didn't have Clinton's charisma. Tsongas or Brown would probably beat Bush, albiet more narrowly than Clinton.

What if Clinton doesn't recover from his loss in NH, Tsongas picks up enough momentum to be the nominee, Richards is picked as VP, and when Tsongas dies in office Richards becomes President?
 
IMO this is similar to what used to be a theological mainstay with a lot of people on this site back in the day; that the Republicans only ever nominate the runner-up of the previous contest. Which held perfectly until four years ago, when Rick Santorum not only didn't become the nominee, he wasn't even a factor.

So much historical noise, really. Most 'failed' VP nominees are relatively minor figures designed to limit the exposure of a national figure nominee. In '92, this situation was exactly reversed. Al Gore isn't just going to fade into the ether.

What should be borne in mind with '92 is that a Poppy re-election world won't have a mirror onto ours. The conventional wisdom coming out of his re-election will be that the Dems didn't realise that election could be competitive until it was too late, and so they ended up with Bubba Bill or more likely Tsongas, I.E a third-grade candidate out of left-field, instead of one of the big-hitters that many establishmentarians were pining for in 91. Such as Gephardt, or Cuomo, or yes, Al Gore.

You'll end up with an awful, awful lot of people believing that if Gore had been at the top of the ticket, the result would have been different. So no, I don't see his reputation being ruined by being on the bottom of the ticket of a Could Woulda Shudda ex-post-facto campaign; quite the opposite, in fact.

You guys do realise that if the conventional wisdom out of '92 is 'We shouldn't nominate flaky candidates like Paul Tsongas', that's not going to work in favour of someone like Ann Richards, right? Alt-96 isn't going to be '76 II - Outsider Boogaloo.

(You mean Ferraro btw; Holly Gennaro was John McLane's wife )

lol yes Ferraro *facepalm*
 
She was on Bill Clinton's list of potential running mates in 1992 but I think there was too much concern that she might have a relapse of her substance abuse problems.
 
Wouldn't it be ironic though, if Richards is elected VP in 1992 and she defeats GWB for the Presidency in 2000? (Provided that Bush defeats her successor in 1994?)
 
Maybe a giant sucking sound could help her...

I was going to say. The best way to make Ann Richards president is for Ross Perot to be the 42nd President of the United States. He'll be buffeted on all sides while also shaking up both parties in a big way. Especially if he wins his home state of Texas, I think Richards has a decent shot as someone who can shake things up (but is still the governor of one of the country's largest states). Perot's win might also help her win re-election in 1994, given that he may try to do some party-building of his own/inspire other independents to run.

Alternately, as mentioned above, Tsongas/Richards seems like a plausible ticket.
 
She was on Bill Clinton's list of potential running mates in 1992 but I think there was too much concern that she might have a relapse of her substance abuse problems.

Another point is that Clinton was somewhat sensitive to charges that he lacked foreign policy/national security experience, so he wanted a running mate who was a senator (or a member of the House like Lee Hamilton, who specialized in foreign policy). Choosing Richards would double down on foreign policy inexperience. (Granted, though, that 1992, with the Cold War over and terrorism not yet a major issue, a party would be more likely to get away with that than during the Cold War or after 9/11.)
 
Top