Completely Hypothetical...

[DaveC]

I noticed something today as I was watching RNC coverage and saw an interview with Dan Quayle.

There seems to have been a bit of a trend lately regarding vice-presidents. Presidents who have two terms seem to have a lot of VP's who run the next campaign for President. Case in point, Reagan has 2 terms, Bush, his VP, runs for President in '88. Or a mor recent example, Clinton has 2 terms, and Gore, his VP, runs for President in 2000.

Now here's a terrifying (but hypothetical) question:

If Bush Sr. had won in 1992, would Dan Quayle have run for President in 1996? Would he have actually had a chance to win?

And (here's the real scary part) if he had have won, what do you think may have happened over the past 8 years (assuming he'd win 2 terms, he'd still be President right now)? Who would have been his VP?

...the horror...

 

[verte76]

Dan Quayle actually started to run for president in 1996, but he didn't stay in the race long. When he dropped out he claimed that it was too expensive for him to run. This didn't surprise me, even though fundraising standards in 1996 were a heck of alot lower than they are now. Both parties focus on fundraising now. It's almost like it's "screw the issues, the important thing is a good advertising campaign". Unless you can raise untold millions of bucks, you can forget about having a shot at the presidency. I think this is really screwed up.

 

[DaveC]

 

[Kieran McConville]

If you take Ross Perot, Ross Perot and Ralph Nader out of the equation, it's entirely possible we'd be talking about President Bob Dole, President Al Gore and a second-term President G.H.W Bush. Although I suppose if there had been a second-term George Snr. it would be Quayle running, not Dole. Which shoots that theory down. Hypotheticals are so confusing.

 

[Kieran McConville]

Hey, here's a fun one to chew on: what if Goldwater had won in '64!!!