Very interesting debate. My position is sans Ross Bush would have lost a close race. Dole as well. I’d rather have had Dole in 88 or have Dole win in 1996 instead of W. Bush in 2000.
Powell makes me sick, I’d wouldn’t take him over Romney or even Jon Huntsman. I doubt a Senator Romney could have beaten Dole in the 96 primaries fresh of running as a “moderate”, ego or no ego I doubt he would have tried, he would have angled for VP maybe, or waited until 2000 after having had time to flip flop to conservative positions.
I’ll bet if Dole had secured the nomination in 1988 (I supported him over Bush, Sr. at the time, btw, even though I wasn’t old enough to vote, but I was already chin-deep into politics), his running mate would’ve been none other than, you guessed it, Jack Kemp. I surmise Dole would’ve won, but he wouldn’t have done the “read my lips” bit that would ultimately kill Bush, Sr.’s chances for a second term. Dole probably would’ve been a marginally better President. Jack Kemp might’ve successfully managed to succeed him in 1996, despite a few nutty positions, his pleasant personality and unquestionable earnestness on bringing Blacks & Hispanics back to the GOP would’ve probably gotten it done. Ultimately, we would’ve dodged all the Bushies (although perhaps it would’ve been Jeb that might’ve ended up a leading Presidential contender for 2004).
I agree that a narrow Clinton victory would have been the likeliest result in both 92 and 96 had Perot not been on the ballot, but Bush would have had a chance at victory in 1992 because IA, CT and ME would have been very close and had Bush won the first two he would have gotten 270 EVs. BTW, even without Perot, TN would have voted for Clinton in 92, but would have gone for Dole in 96.