In 1991, Al Gore was one of many leading Democrats to pull himself out of the presidential race thinking that George H.W. Bush was a shoe-in for re-election. Further, a car accident that nearly killed his son in 1989 persuaded Gore to take a break from national politics in order to focus on family. What if that car accident didn't happen, making Gore more willing to run and he jumps into the race in late 1991? Could he have won the nomination? Or would he have split the Southern centrist vote with Clinton, helping Jerry Brown?
WI: Gore Runs in 1992
- Thread starter Amadeus
- Start date
He was a forceful campaigner as a younger man. I can see a few possibilities. Clinton might just bow out. The Clinton/Brown feud might keep the two campaigns distracted and looking petty, allowing Gore to rise above and become the clear favorite. Or Gore’s more combative style might put him and Brown in a tussle and let Clinton float by, looking the bigger man. Those in addition to your notion that Clinton and Gore simply split that segment of the vote and push Brown to the top.
So at least a couple plausible scenarios where he wins the nomination. Honestly he’s a stronger candidate than Clinton in a lot of ways for a national campaign. A dramatic speaker and fierce debater, really good with the big picture (back in the 80s at least). Not so good with the retail politics and general affability that’s so important in a crowded primary.
So at least a couple plausible scenarios where he wins the nomination. Honestly he’s a stronger candidate than Clinton in a lot of ways for a national campaign. A dramatic speaker and fierce debater, really good with the big picture (back in the 80s at least). Not so good with the retail politics and general affability that’s so important in a crowded primary.
Clinton was singularly determined to become President, I seriously doubt that he is deterred from running just because of Gore - especially since even in the 1990s Gore had noticable vulnerabilities (he was known as a poor speaker and his climate change activism was the subject of ridicule even from environmentalist Republicans like Bush Sr). In 1988 Gore split the Southern primaries with Jackson, it's not unreasonable to think that a similar situation would occur between Gore and Clinton. However with no Ed Koch to ruin his chances in New York (Koch's endorsement of Gore over Jackson helped to do him in on election day) I think Gore would do better this time around. Even if Gore loses the primary, he's in a good position to be nominated as VP by a Northern Democrat.
Gore would soak up donations as the senior man, and one who had an established relationship with the likes of IMPAC from 1988 and it's hard not to see him becoming the frontrunner - a bit like the Republicans with the 2012 nomination, there was a lot of dissatisfaction with the likely field in 1991 and a continual hope that a bigger name like Gore, Bradley or Cuomo would jump in. I suspect Clinton would probably still run (or at least try to) but it is very hard to see him pulling through in New Hampshire with a respectable second like he did IOTL. As soon as his baggage emerges, there is a ready-made alternative for his vote to migrate to. If he makes it to New Hampshire I can only see Gore going into the southern primaries as the one of the two still effectively standing.
Last edited:
Gore was by no means as charismatic as Clinton, but unlike Clinton Gore was a war veteran and a better family man. Clinton's "Slick Willie" image haunted him during the election and during much of his presidency, Gore might've been stiff but he as a person was less subject to the kind of intense scrutiny that Clinton endured. So either he does just as well or somewhat better than Clinton.
As President, in many ways I think Gore would've been a more efficient version of Clinton. You's see NAFTA passed plus tough on crime legislation, but given Gore's skill as a legislator I doubt that he'd suffer the early debacles that lost the Democrats both Houses of Congress in 1994.
Now I wonder who Gore might pick as a running mate. Tsongas? John Kerry? Bob Graham? Without the Lewinsky scandal, the Democrats might be able to win again in 2000 based off the good economy and relative peace on the world stage.
Gore was also one of the few Democrats to yote "Yes" on the resolution authorizing Bush to use military force to expel Iraq from Kuwait. That helps him a great deal in the general election. I think he wins more easily than Clinton did because he not only will get the votes Clinton did but he will probably siphon votes off of Perot and probably some from Bush. Remember, Clinton won in 1992 with only 43% of the popular vote, Gore probably does a good bit better.
The Democrats could have renominated Dukakis and still won. The recession ensured that HW wouldn't be re-elected.
Well, if Clinton hadn't run then Brown probably would've won the nomination. If he followed through on his pledge to make Jesse Jackson his running mate, then I think Bush Sr would've narrowly been re-elected in an upset victory. Even during a weak recovery most people aren't going to vote for Moonbeam and an outright anti-Semite. Perot might even endorse Bush just to prevent Brown/Jackson from taking the White House.
He's odds-on favourite. His campaign probably wouldn't have the technical brilliance of Wilhelm/Begala/Carvile (But there are other good Dem brains trusts which weren't front and centre IOTL) but he should compensate for that by having most of Clinton's positives without a lot of his negatives. Like Clinton, he opens up the South, and in concert with how badly a lot of the rest of the country, like New England and SoCal had done in the recession, Bush is very much in a corner.
So if Gore runs and butterflies result in Brown being nominated, this could end up re-electing Bush Sr. In that event, I'm sure that Gore as well as other candidates who in OTL sat out 1992 (Bradley, Cuomo, etc) would be the frontrunners for 1996. After sixteen years of Republican rule and with Dan Quayle at the top of the ticket, any Democrat is a shoe-in for 1996. Unless they run a terrible Dewey-style campaign that allows Quayle to squeak by like Truman in 1948.
I don't think Quayle would be nominated in 1996. I'm not even sure if Quayle would run. Quayle had health issues and it would be easy for other Republicans to claim to be "smarter".
Gore would be the front runner for the nomination. He came in third in 1992, and on paper is the strongest candidate with the possible exception of Brown, who the national party establishment and news media just didn't want. Gore and Brown would also be the only candidates to have run a national primary campaign before.
One thing that could shift the dynamic would be whether Gore by-passes New Hampshire, like he tried to do in 1988, or makes a serious run there. But either way, everyone else has vulnerabilities over a long campaign. Clinton also got really, really lucky.
Clinton still runs and becomes the 1992 version of 2008's Bill Richardson. But he could well wind up being the Democratic nominee in 2000, after being Gore's VP, or being elected to the Senate in 1996.
One thing that could shift the dynamic would be whether Gore by-passes New Hampshire, like he tried to do in 1988, or makes a serious run there. But either way, everyone else has vulnerabilities over a long campaign. Clinton also got really, really lucky.
Clinton still runs and becomes the 1992 version of 2008's Bill Richardson. But he could well wind up being the Democratic nominee in 2000, after being Gore's VP, or being elected to the Senate in 1996.
Brown was a longshot, he only really came into his groove once Clinton had the nomination pretty much sewn up with his unexpected win in Connecticut, he was benefiting from being pretty much the last man standing - similar to Jesse Jackson in 1988. I know Wikipedia has both as the statistical runners-up, but that doesn't mean they were the second most-likely to be nominated.
Clinton would never be nominated as a running mate with his baggage, he'd never pass basic vetting.
Clinton would never be nominated as a running mate with his baggage, he'd never pass basic vetting.
Last edited:
I think he or Hillary could get elected to the Senate in 1996, but for the time being the Clinton's national ambitions are put to a halt. It's worth remembering that Clinton - who started out with a 16 point lead in NH -- was nearly destroyed by the Flowers affair and draft dodge story. Even his own loyalists were leaving his campaign for dead. Only by acquiring the same number of delegates in the NH primary despite finishing second was he able to restart his campaign. With Gore in the race, probably finishing ahead of Clinton, Clinton probably comes in third at best and his campaign would lose momentum from there as voters and party leaders perceive Clinton's personal problems as too much of a hindrance to be nominated.
The Vice Presidential pick is tricky, as Gore does not need to make the same choices Clinton did. Gore had domestic and foreign policy credentials, but would need to shore up some liberal support given his platform. Could see a pick like Booth Gardner. Paul Simon actually may be a good choice, having some national recognition from his own '88 run and being an open Bush critic.
"Clinton would never be nominated as a running mate with his baggage, he'd never pass basic vetting."
John Edwards made it past the vetting.
One thing good about the pick of Gore for VP is that Clinton selected someone he was compatible with, and who would continue his policies if he became President, instead of traditional ticket balancing/ broadening concerns, and it worked out OK electorally. Maybe if the situation were reversed, Gore would have taken a similar approach.
John Edwards made it past the vetting.
One thing good about the pick of Gore for VP is that Clinton selected someone he was compatible with, and who would continue his policies if he became President, instead of traditional ticket balancing/ broadening concerns, and it worked out OK electorally. Maybe if the situation were reversed, Gore would have taken a similar approach.
Gore was a pretty strong centrist candidate back then, I could see him ending up with a Northerner as his VP to balance the ticket by region (I feel like Gore would be careful enough to continue the tradition of regional balancing).
Maybe it'd be possible for Ed Koch to end up as his VP? I think he'd be a little old, but he's mostly a liberal with law and order credentials and idk, it'd be really interesting if Koch ended up as POTUS incidentally. Gore was young and Koch was old (he'd be almost 68 when being sworn in).
Maybe it'd be possible for Ed Koch to end up as his VP? I think he'd be a little old, but he's mostly a liberal with law and order credentials and idk, it'd be really interesting if Koch ended up as POTUS incidentally. Gore was young and Koch was old (he'd be almost 68 when being sworn in).
Since Koch got primaried by Dinkins in 1989, I don't think any wise politician would put him on the ticket. Cuomo or Moynihan would be smarter choices if Gore wants a New Yorker as VP.