In 1991, New York Governor Mario Cuomo famously dithered over whether or not to run for President in the upcoming Democratic primaries. Ultimately he decided not to run, claiming that New York's budget problems were too much of a distraction, and Bill Clinton was nominated instead. Had Cuomo decided to run, and if he'd won the Democratic nomination (which wasn't guaranteed), who might he have chosen as his running mate?
 
Clinton or Gore would still be good choices for him, someone younger with a regional/ideological balance.

If Clinton loses the primary, would his defeat be blamed on his scandalous personal life? If so, he wouldn't be an ideal VP candidate.

It seems that Gore is destined to be a VP contender in 1992. Are there any alternatives? Perhaps other Southern moderates who could balance out Cuomo? What are the chances of Ann Richards being chosen?
 
If Clinton loses the primary, would his defeat be blamed on his scandalous personal life? If so, he wouldn't be an ideal VP candidate.

It seems that Gore is destined to be a VP contender in 1992. Are there any alternatives? Perhaps other Southern moderates who could balance out Cuomo? What are the chances of Ann Richards being chosen?

Personally I think Richards is unlikely, mostly for the (admittedly shallow) fact that the ticket would then be comprised of two Governors; off the top of my head, I can think of plenty double Senator tickets, and more with one Governor and one Senator, but none with two Governors. And that seems logical to me, for the fact that as an "outsider" Governor, they would probably want someone on the ticket who has experience in/preexisting relationships with Congress.

So that's the long way of saying, yes, I think Gore is the most likely candidate. A veteran, a Congressman and Senator with a moderate image, from the south, it'd be hard for Cuomo to pass him over.
I do think Dick Gephardt could be a good choice too, though. There's also Bob Graham and Sam Nunn, with Nunn in particular helping boost Cuomo's foreign policy chops.
 
Personally I think Richards is unlikely, mostly for the (admittedly shallow) fact that the ticket would then be comprised of two Governors; off the top of my head, I can think of plenty double Senator tickets, and more with one Governor and one Senator, but none with two Governors. And that seems logical to me, for the fact that as an "outsider" Governor, they would probably want someone on the ticket who has experience in/preexisting relationships with Congress.

So that's the long way of saying, yes, I think Gore is the most likely candidate. A veteran, a Congressman and Senator with a moderate image, from the south, it'd be hard for Cuomo to pass him over.
I do think Dick Gephardt could be a good choice too, though. There's also Bob Graham and Sam Nunn, with Nunn in particular helping boost Cuomo's foreign policy chops.

Wilson and Marshall in 1912 were two Governors.

In addition to Gore, Nunn, Graham, and Gephardt would potentially be good choices.
 
Wilson and Marshall in 1912 were two Governors.

In addition to Gore, Nunn, Graham, and Gephardt would potentially be good choices.

Kinda reinforces my point if we have to go all the way back to 1912 tho, doesn't it?

Not saying it's impossible by any means, just that it seems unlikely.
 
If Daddy Cuomo had been the Dem nominee for the Presidency in 1992, I think he likely would've picked a SOUTHERNER as VP:

1.) United States Senator Albert Gore, Jr., (D-TN): served in the United States Army; served in the US House of Representatives from TN's 4th & 6th Congressional Districts (1977 to 1985) & United States Senator from TN (1985 to 1993): I should note that Gore was the last Dem to win a US Senate in TN with his 1990 reelection landslide victory with 67%.

2.) United States Senator Samuel Nunn (D-GA): strong National Defense hawk; served in the United States Coast Guard Reserves (1959 to 1968); served in GA House of Representatives from District 41 (1969 to 1972); United States Senator from GA (1972 to 1997).
 
Wilson and Marshall in 1912 were two Governors.

1948 was the last year a major party nominated two governors (Dewey and Warren). Apparently as the Cold War developed, it was considered necessary that if the presidential nominee didn't have foreign policy/national security experience, his running mate should, at least insofar as Congress deals with foreign policy and defense--and besides, congressional experience is useful in helping the president deal with Congress in other areas. Hence Carter chose Mondale, Reagan chose GHW Bush, Dukakis chose Bentsen, Bill Clinton chose Gore, GW Bush chose Cheney, Mitt Romney chose Ryan, Trump chose Pence (a governor but with a background in Congress).

OTOH, if there was ever a year in which a ticket didn't need to have national security/foreign policy credentials, it was 1992. With the USSR no longer in existence and Islamist terrorism not yet a pressing concern, it was almost as though the US didn't really need a foreign policy...
 
OTOH, if there was ever a year in which a ticket didn't need to have national security/foreign policy credentials, it was 1992. With the USSR no longer in existence and Islamist terrorism not yet a pressing concern, it was almost as though the US didn't really need a foreign policy...

IOTL, Clinton strongly disagreed.

Bush also disagreed in 2000, when the international climate was also fairly stable. It's the anticipation of foreign policy becoming an issue that dominates selection, not the 'now'. In 92, the Gulf had just stopped being in the public conscious - and nobody had a crystal ball.
 
Last edited:
IOTL, Clinton strongly disagreed.

Clinton definitely was not elected for national security expertise. "It's the economy, stupid" is not always true but was for 1992. (In his famous "culture war" speech at the GOP national convention that year, Pat Buchanan joked that "Bill Clinton's foreign policy experience is pretty much confined to having had breakfast once at the International House of Pancakes.")
 
Clinton definitely was not elected for national security expertise. "It's the economy, stupid" is not always true but was for 1992. (In his famous "culture war" speech at the GOP national convention that year, Pat Buchanan joked that "Bill Clinton's foreign policy experience is pretty much confined to having had breakfast once at the International House of Pancakes.")

Yes, and, to return to the little issue of what we're supposed to be talking about, Clinton's lack of foreign policy chops is what lead him to pick Gore. Nobody is saying he was nominated because of foreign policy - but once there, he felt the desire to pick someone like Gore, precisely to anticipate the attacks you've just quoted.

Nobody has a crystal ball about the future, so stressing how domestically-focused 92 was is irrelevant. There is always an anticipation of foreign policy becoming an issue - and it can become so quite suddenly, as it did on nine eleven.
 
1948 was the last year a major party nominated two governors (Dewey and Warren). Apparently as the Cold War developed, it was considered necessary that if the presidential nominee didn't have foreign policy/national security experience, his running mate should, at least insofar as Congress deals with foreign policy and defense--and besides, congressional experience is useful in helping the president deal with Congress in other areas. Hence Carter chose Mondale, Reagan chose GHW Bush, Dukakis chose Bentsen, Bill Clinton chose Gore, GW Bush chose Cheney, Mitt Romney chose Ryan, Trump chose Pence (a governor but with a background in Congress).

OTOH, if there was ever a year in which a ticket didn't need to have national security/foreign policy credentials, it was 1992. With the USSR no longer in existence and Islamist terrorism not yet a pressing concern, it was almost as though the US didn't really need a foreign policy...

Thanks for pointing that out.
 
Another name not mentioned yet, who'd served as both a Governor and a Senator, and who was also a US Navy SEAL and Medal of Honor recipient, Bob Kerrey of Nebraska. Then again, his involvement in the Thanh Phong raid might attract the wrong kind of foreign policy attention.

Alternatively, there's Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia. Similar credentials in terms of elected office, with the ironic twist of being a Democrat from a traditionally Republican, New York based dynasty. Cuomo/Rockefeller has a nice ring to it.
 
Last edited:
Let's say that Cuomo runs and wins the nomination, and he picks Gore to balance the ticket. Cuomo defeats Bush due to the poor economy (though by less of a margin than Clinton, since he wouldn't have won as many Southern states), and he's re-elected in 1996. In this scenario, would Gore have defeated George W. Bush four years later?
 
Top