I thought about this a lot recently, because it's actually likely considering Ross Perot pulling the numbers (states) he did where Bush won big in 88 and seeing his numbers against Dole in 96.
I think Clinton would have run again, blaming Perot and a weak field, ie... 2000 (Bill Bradley) and 2004 (Dean, Kerry).
I think Bill would have won against 16 years of Republican dominance and against Quayle (a likely but easy to beat candidate in 96).
Clinton was the only the star of the Democratic field for about a decade. And there's nobody possible who could have defeated either his ego or himself.
Then (in all likelihood) VP Quayle would have been challenged by the likes of Dole or Kemp, who could have emerged as the possible nominee. Had they done that (won the Rep. nomination) it would have put ill will toward the brand and this in effect hurt the parties chances.
Clinton would more than likely have chosen another a VP pick (not Gore), possibly Bradley or someone in a swing state circa 1996 and won the election.
Gore's name would have been wiped away from the collective consciousness of Americans.
W. would have probably gotten the nomination at some point an so too Obama. It would have been interesting to see the two debating against each other.
Odds are on Obama.
Which would in turn make Trump (irrelevant at that point) to old to run.
What a decade?
Possible scenarios include:
9/11 NEVER happening.
That would be it of course. That's the bullet point.
...The rest of history falls into place or out of place for that matter.
reply
share