u/RWBIII_22

Are you feeling the chaos yet!

The Reform Party Primary is just four contests in, and yet, it feels very close to being in the final stretch, especially after two candidates dropped out to consolidate support behind a middle-ground candidate in order to prevent a dogmatic figure from the Reform Left or the Reform Right from winning the nomination. Things are getting crazy. Let's see how we got there:

In the New Hampshire Primary, Former President Gravel would get his first win of the season. His main competitor, Governor of Louisiana Buddy Roemer, appeared to be competitive in statewide polling, but Roemer only finished third, squeezed on one side by the presence of Ron Paul on the ballot pulling away fiscally conservative voters and on the other by Richard Lamm and Tim Penny, the fourth and fifth-place finishers, splitting the anti-Gravel vote. Roemer polled well, but when the votes were cast, he couldn't consolidate enough anti-Gravel support to deny another victory from the former President.

Richard Lamm and Tim Penny are out the race. Buddy Roemer is the only Reform Party member left in this race to represent the anti-Gravel wing of the party.

However, Roemer righted the ship in Delaware, winning the State by a narrow margin over Gravel even with Paul, Lamm, and Penny on the ballot. Paul's staying power in this race is quite impressive, considering his refusal to campaign for the Reform nomination, but he is one of America's most well-known (and widely-beloved) political figures. Heading into the Super Tuesday slate of primaries, both Lamm and Penny would drop out to consolidate the anti-Gravel vote behind Roemer. Super Tuesday's contests include many Southern states where Gravel still has strong support. Lamm and Penny, both Northerners, had no shot at winning any of these states. Roemer, a Southerner, does. This is down to a three man race, which, weirdly enough, only two men are campaigning for. Buddy Roemer briefly slipped behind Gravel in the polls after his New Hampshire loss, but in the final pre-Super Tuesday polls, it appears he has regained the lead. Whoever wins Super Tuesday, whether it's Gravel, Paul, or Roemer, will be the unquestioned front-runner for the rest of this race. Every vote will be crucial.

As always, you can vote for your favorite HERE.

State of the Race

Candidate	Delegate Count	Contests Won
Buddy Roemer	33	Delaware, Iowa
Mike Gravel	31	New Hampshire
Ron Paul	20
Richard Lamm (withdrawn)	19
Tim Penny (withdrawn)	3
Jack Gargan (withdrawn)	1
Donald Trump (write-in)	1

After wins in New Hampshire and Delaware, Tom Hayden is now the man to beat in the Green Party presidential race.

In a year full of crazy primary elections, the Green Party is determined to have the only normal one. After primaries in Delaware and New Hampshire, the field has slimmed down from four to three, with a two-man race between party juggernauts potentially on the horizon after the crucial set of Super Tuesday primaries, which are coming up soon. Here's how we got there:

In New Hampshire, strong support for Mary Alice Herbert, the Governor of neighboring Vermont and the contest's third place finisher, pulled a lot of support away from expected winner Paul Wellstone, helping the more moderate choice, Governor of California Tom Hayden, win by a slim margin. Dennis Kucinich placed fourth. Then, just days later in Delaware, Hayden won by an even larger margin in a state that swings towards more moderate Greens. Wellstone again placed second, Herbert again placed third, and Kucinich again placed fourth.

Dennis Kucinich has dropped out of the Presidential race to focus on re-election to the House. He's endorsed Paul Wellstone.

After receiving around 5% of the vote in both New Hampshire and Delaware, Kucinich dropped out of the race and endorsed Wellstone. However, Kucinich's endorsement wasn't able to stop Wellstone's slide in the polls. Tom Hayden is gaining momentum, and before Super Tuesday, most national polls are showing Hayden in the lead, a big shift from early on in this race, where Wellstone had a double-digit lead in the polls. Mary Alice Herbert is still hanging on, polling strong at around 20% nationally, but she still sits far behind the top two candidates and has mainly become a spoiler for Wellstone at this point.

Next up is the all-important Super Tuesday. The overall winner of this huge slate of contests will get a huge upper hand in this race. It could be Hayden, it could be Wellstone, and it might even be Mary Alice Herbert. If Herbert doesn't perform strongly during Super Tuesday, it is likely that this becomes a two-man race between Hayden, who represents the party's more moderate wing, and Wellstone, who represents it's more radical wing. That's pretty straightforward in comparison to some of the craziness happening in other primaries right now (yes, that was a shot at you, Mary Bono). As always, you can vote for your favorite HERE.

State of the Race

Candidate	Delegate Count	Contests Won
Tom Hayden	40	Delaware, New Hampshire
Paul Wellstone	38	Iowa
Mary Alice Herbert	16
Dennis Kucinich (withdrawn)	9
Dan Hamburg (withdrawn)	3
Judith Bari	1
Cynthia McKinney (write-in)	1

The Iowa Caucus has come and gone. The results will have major impacts on the primary races for all four major parties. Each party will eventually get their own post describing the Iowa results and how they effected their respective races. For the Democratic Party, the Caucus itself helped a few candidates and hurt a fair amount of others. However, what's more important to the Presidential race was a major exit before the Caucus began, followed by a new candidate's entry. With seventeen candidates in the race - any change in the field is bound to be interesting, and it still doesn't feel as though the race will consolidate any time soon.

Pressured by his closest allies, including President Dick Van Dyke, to drop out of the race, Richard Celeste ended his campaign shortly before the Iowa Caucus.

Richard Celeste wasn't going to drop out of this race. Then, he suddenly changed his mind, just days before the Iowa Caucus. Reportedly, Celeste had been pressured by several prominent supporters to drop out of the race, including President Dick Van Dyke, who urged him to end his presidential campaign to save face for the party and the administration. Celeste would choose to withhold his endorsement until the list of candidates to choose from narrowed somewhat, smart, considering the field isn't getting any smaller.

Enter Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota

https://preview.redd.it/c4nm7odiumjh1.png?width=840&format=png&auto=webp&s=e9c76d441a073861aa3e5b2937a615c4cae7484e

Dorgan, a first-term Senator from North Dakota, had formed a presidential exploratory committee earlier in the race, but he abandoned his bid after two of his closest colleagues in the Senate, Tom Harkin and Skip Humphrey announced bids of their own. Now, with Celeste out of the race, Dorgan - one of the closest Democrats to Celeste ideologically - saw an opening.

Dorgan and Celeste largely agree on economic policy. Both are pro-union, cautious when it comes to free trade, supportive of targeted protective tariffs, and call for greater federal involvement in regulating the financial sector. Both are advocates for strong federal investment in education, infrastructure, and innovation. However, the platforms of Celeste and Dorgan also have a few key differences. A moderate on social issues, Dorgan's platform avoids cultural issues such as abortion and gay rights. Instead, he has pledged to campaign exclusively on economic policy during the Democratic Primary - his primary area of expertise. Dorgan is also more fiscally conservative than Celeste was. He's called for cuts to wasteful and unnecessary federal spending and promises not to increase the deficit if elected President. Perhaps Dorgan's most controversial position is on immigration - he voted for a bipartisan bill - vetoed earlier this year by Dick Van Dyke - which would dramatically reduce the flow of immigration into the United States. That vote will surely be fodder for his progressive primary opponents to criticize him on.

Who did you expect to win? Iowans love this man.

With Celeste dropping out and Dorgan jumping in, the Iowa Caucus proceeded with seventeen recognizable Democratic candidates on the ballot. Tom Harkin would be the winner, and by a comfortable margin too, due to his home-state advantage. Skip Humphrey again impressed, stealing second place away from Jesse Jackson. Al Gore, also rising, placed fourth. Ann Richards disappointed, placing fifth, proving that there's clear overlap between her voter base and the base of her populist rival from Iowa. Mario Cuomo and Bob Graham both had solid performances, placing sixth and seventh. Bill Bradley, counted out after a poor showing in Ohio, rebounded with a strong performance of his own in the Hawkeye State. Dorgan and Kathleen Sullivan Alioto would place ninth, and tenth respectively.

Bill Nelson struggled in the Iowa Caucus. His poor performance there has badly hurt his campaign in the polls.

The big losers of the Iowa Caucus were Bill Nelson and Paul Pelosi. Nelson, who's brand of liberal centrism translates poorly to Iowa, where most Democratic voters live in rural areas, got less than 1% of the vote. Pelosi failed to win a single delegate, finishing with the fewest total ,votes of the sixteen major candidates, less than 1,000 in total. After the Iowa Caucus concluded, Pelosi would drop out of the race and endorse Kathleen Sullivan Alioto, mercifully cutting the crowded field down to sixteen candidates, which is where it stands going into the next major contest of the Democratic Primary: New Hampshire.

Jesse Jackson remains the leader in national polling despite a third-place finish in Iowa, with Tom Harkin jumping over Ann Richards into second place. Al Gore and Skip Humphrey, polling fourth and fifth, are both within striking distance of the nomination too. Behind them is a large second tier, consisting of Cuomo, Graham, Sullivan Alioto, Dorgan, Bradley, and Nelson - some rising, some falling, none really in serious contention. But, with how crazy this race has been, there's still time for one or more of these second tier candidates to become a real contender. I wouldn't bet on Nelson, however, as, he's slipped in the polls since Iowa, with a lot of his supporters drifting towards Bob Graham, who's run the better campaign of the two Florida moderates in the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination. However, with sixteen candidates still in the race, it's hard to get any conclusive results. Someone, please, drop out already!

As always, you can vote for your favorites HERE.

State of the Race

Candidate	Delegate Count	Contests Won
Tom Harkin	40	Iowa
Jesse Jackson	40	Ohio
Ann Richards	33
Al Gore	23
Skip Humphrey	20
Doug Applegate	10
Mario Cuomo	10
Bob Graham	10
Bill Nelson	8
Chet Edwards	7
Bob Kerrey	6
Kathleen Sullivan Alioto	6
Bill Bradley	5
Byron Dorgan	2
Paul Pelosi (withdrawn)	2
Kathleen Kennedy Townsend	2
Richard Celeste (withdrawn)	1
Douglas Wilder	1

The Iowa Caucus has come and gone. The results will have major impacts on the primary races for all four major parties. Each party will eventually get their own post describing the Iowa results and how they effected their respective races. Next up is the Republican Party, who also saw an upset winner, with the conservative four-term Governor of Iowa losing to a more moderate candidate.

Tom Ridge stole the Iowa Caucus away from Terry Branstad with the help of Ron Paul. He's now this race's front-runner.

That candidate was Tom Ridge, who won not by exceeding polling expectations, but because Terry Branstad, Iowa's sitting Governor, underperformed. Ron Paul, who placed third, performed far better in the state than polling indicated, cutting into support for Branstad and helping Ridge claim an upset victory. Christine Todd Whitman, another moderate, finished a respectable fourth. George Voinovich and George W. Bush secured a few delegates each, enough to stay in the race but not enough to inspire confidence that they'll emerge as legitimate threats for the nomination. Connie Mack III, coming off a disastrous performance in the first two Republican Primaries in Alaska and Hawaii, failed to win a single delegate. Mack, citing poor primary performances and plummeting poll numbers, dropped out of the race after Iowa and endorsed Christine Todd Whitman.

Ron Paul is strong too, signaling this primary could soon become a rematch of the 1992 race.

A few days later, in Louisiana, caucusgoers would award the plurality of delegates to Ron Paul, who claimed his second victory of the primary cycle. Christine Todd Whitman would get her highest finish yet, placing second. George Voinovich also saw his highest placing of the primary season, as he narrowly beat out Tom Ridge for third place. Terry Branstad and George W. Bush pulled up the rear in fifth and sixth place, respectively. Bush's poor performance is a bad sign for his campaign, as Louisiana neighbors his home state of Texas. Of all the six remaining Republican candidates, his standing in the race is most precarious.

The polling reflects that too. With four primaries down, Tom Ridge has emerged as the race's new front-runner, although Ron Paul and Christine Todd Whitman are both still very competitive. Terry Branstad is still polling in fourth place - not really living up to his campaign's lofty expectations. Voinovich remains strong, but limited in fifth place, and Bush is on his way out of the race in sixth place. Of course, polling is always changing, but this race is shaping up to be a rematch of the Paul vs. Ridge race from 1992, with Whitman being the wild card. Next up are primaries in Delaware and New Hampshire, two states that lean a bit more moderate. This could be where Ridge pulls away or Whitman becomes competitive. Or, it could be where Ron Paul shuts the door on both of them.

As always, you can vote for your favorites HERE.

State of the Race

Candidate	Delegate Count	Contests Won
Ron Paul	25	Alaska, Louisiana
Tom Ridge	20	Hawaii, Iowa
Christine Todd Whitman	19
Terry Branstad	11
George Voinovich	10
George W. Bush	5
Pat Robertson (withdrawn)	2
Connie Mack III (withdrawn)	1
Richard Petty (write-in)	1
Thomas Sowell (write-in)	1

Governor of Louisiana Buddy Roemer would win the Iowa Caucus over Mike Gravel in a surprise upset.

The Iowa Caucus has come and gone. The results will have major impacts on the primary races for all four major parties. Each party will eventually get their own post describing the Iowa results and how they effected their respective races. Next up is the Reform Party, who saw their heavily-favored early front runner dethroned in Iowa by an up-and-comer who's emerged as the new front-runner for the Reform nomination.

In a surprising upset, Buddy Roemer would win the Iowa Caucus by a comfortable margin. Richard Lamm would finish a strong second and former President Mike Gravel, who still enjoys strong support in Iowa and was expected by many to be this primary's victor, fell to third. Roemer's victory and Gravel's third place finish indicate that voters want to move past the Gravel era and on to a candidate oriented more towards the future. Despite not actively campaigning for the Reform Party nomination in the state, Ron Paul finished a solid fourth place. Finishing in last was Jack Gargan, who has fallen far behind his more nationally-recognizable opponents. A few days after the Iowa Caucus, Gargan would drop out of the race and endorse Ron Paul. Gargan's exit from the race left the more conventional conservative wing of the party without a clear candidate to support. That hole was filled when a new candidate entered the race. He is:

Former Representative Tim Penny of Minnesota.

https://preview.redd.it/7n1bksd9f8jh1.png?width=540&format=png&auto=webp&s=d5ff85b6be6473930da0ca67b2797e7c5340d19b

Tim Penny, a then a State Senator, was first elected to Congress as a Democrat in 1984 as part of the Gravel landslide. He served five terms in the House of Representatives from 1985 to 1995. During his time in the House, Penny was a reliable ally of the Gravel Administration. Despite conservative stances on fiscal and social issues, Penny supported all of Gravel's budget proposals, with Gravel in return redirecting plenty of federal infrastructure funding to his Southern Minnesota-based district. When Dick Van Dyke was elected in 1988, Penny often voted against the administration on key votes. Then, after retiring from the House in 1995, he left the Democratic Party for good and joined Reform.

Penny runs for President as a fiscal conservative. He opposes the Paul-Whitman tax cut, supports protective tariffs, and advocates for balancing the budget. He is a social conservative as well, opposing abortion and gay rights and supporting a repeal of the Juan Romero Gun Control Act. Penny served on the Transportation Committee during his time in the House, and has called for extending the Gravel-era infrastructure and transportation bill that helped rural communities, including the ones he represented in Minnesota, spend millions on road, rail, and air transportation modernization. Penny is another candidate that can be best described as Post-Gravel: a Gravel movement veteran who wants to build on the Gravel Movement in some way. In Penny's case, that direction is fiscal restraint, something Gravel showed very little of while President.

As always, you can vote for your favorite candidates HERE.

State of the Race

Candidate	Delegate Count	Contests Won
Buddy Roemer	19	Iowa
Richard Lamm	15
Mike Gravel	13
Ron Paul	9
Jack Gargan (withdrawn)	1

Paul Wellstone was victorious in the Iowa Caucus for the second straight primary cycle.

The Iowa Caucus has come and gone. The results will have major impacts on the primary races for all four major parties. Each party will eventually get their own post describing the Iowa results and how they effected their respective races. For now, we'll start with the Green Party, who saw their nomination's front-runner win the Iowa Caucus, but by a far tighter margin than predicted.

For the second election cycle in a row, Paul Wellstone won the Iowa Caucus. Hailing from neighboring Minnesota, Wellstone has strong campaign infrastructure in the Hawkeye State. It's no surprise he won there. It is surprising how much he won by - only three percentage points. California Governor Tom Hayden would finish just a few thousand votes behind Wellstone, close enough to call into question whether Wellstone's renomination is as inevitable as some within the party expect it to be. Hayden's campaign should be optimistic going into the next two contests in Delaware and New Hampshire, where Green Party voters tend to be higher-educated and more moderate overall.

Dan Hamburg, seen here addressing the Iowa Environmental Caucus, dropped out of the race, endorsing Tom Hayden.

Mary Alice Herbert should also leave Iowa feeling good. While she placed far behind the two front-runners, the consolidation of the party's left wing helped her narrowly beat out Dennis Kucinich for third place in Iowa. Kucinich's fourth-place finish was frustrating. He's spent decades as one of the party's most prominent figures, but he's losing moderate Green Party voters to Hayden and economic populist voters to Herbert. Kucinich may be slowly squeezed out of the race if he can't correct course in the coming contests. Dan Hamburg, who finished with just under 5% of the vote in Iowa, dropped out of the race soon after. Hamburg would endorse fellow Californian Tom Hayden, but some of his more radical supporters instead drifted to Judith Bari, an environmental activist seen as a minor candidate in this race. She was on the ballot in Iowa, but she received less than 1% of the vote. Her support may increase now with Hamburg out of the race.

As always, you can vote for your favorites HERE.

State of the Race

Candidate	Delegate Count	Contests Won
Paul Wellstone	20	Iowa
Tom Hayden	18
Mary Alice Herbert	8
Dennis Kucinich	7
Dan Hamburg (withdrawn)	3
Cynthia McKinney (write-in)	1

The Ohio Caucus completely altered the trajectory of the Democratic primary race. Richard Celeste entered as a front-runner and exits with his campaign in free fall. He's not alone. In a crowded field, many other Democrats have seen their once-promising campaigns fade. Others saw their odds of winning the nomination improve, benefitting from the rapid fall of candidates Richard Celeste and Kathleen Sullivan Alioto. Heading into the next contest, the Iowa Caucus, here's where all the candidates stand according to aggregate polling:

A few months ago, Vice President Richard Celeste was seen as the favorite for this nomination. He's now in need of a massive reversal of fates in Iowa just to stay alive in this race.

Early February 1996 polls show two clear-front runners: Jesse Jackson and Ann Richards. Polling close behind the top two is Tom Harkin, holding strong in third place. Al Gore has risen to fourth, replacing Kathleen Sullivan Alioto as the field's top moderate, while Skip Humphrey has jumped to fifth, pulling in a lot of former Celeste supporters. Kathleen Sullivan Alioto still has an outside shot herself, but she's polling solidly in the middle tier, below Bill Nelson but above Bob Graham. Mario Cuomo is in that tier too, and just below Cuomo is a battered Richard Celeste. Celeste insists his slip in the polls is only temporary, but he loses more and more support each day now and is seen by most Democrats as a tainted candidate after the Bono blunder.

The bottom tier of candidates includes Bill Bradley, who's quietly fallen out of serious contention, Paul Pelosi, Bob Kerrey, Chet Edwards, Doug Applegate, and Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, polling at the lowest percentage since she entered the race, as her father hasn't made any public appearances in quite a while. Douglas Wilder is hanging on too, but his support is negligible, as he's lost a lot of ground among African-American voters to Jackson.

Chris Dodd has dropped out of the race and endorsed Kathleen Sullivan Alioto.

One candidate dropped out after Ohio. Senator Chris Dodd ended his campaign, which had been struggling to fundraise or gain new supporters for months due to a myriad of financial and personal conduct scandals surrounding the candidate. As he exited the race, Dodd endorsed Kathleen Sullivan Alioto, who also has the support of his close friend Ted Kennedy. With a whopping seventeen candidates still left in the race heading into Iowa, the question is less who will win the Iowa Caucus, as it seems to be a formality it will go to Tom Harkin. Instead, it's who will drop out of the race? Bill Bradley, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, Douglas Wilder, and yes, even Richard Celeste, need a big momentum shift in their favor in the Hawkeye State. Otherwise, they may be out of the race by New Hampshire. It's well apparent that there won't be seventeen Democrats in this race for long.

As always, you can vote for your favorite candidates HERE.

State of the Race

Candidate	Delegate Count	Contests Won
Jesse Jackson	31	Ohio
Ann Richards	28
Tom Harkin	25
Al Gore	15
Skip Humphrey	12
Doug Applegate	9
Bob Graham	8
Bill Nelson	8
Chet Edwards	7
Mario Cuomo	6
Bob Kerrey	5
Kathleen Sullivan Alioto	5
Bill Bradley	3
Paul Pelosi	2
Kathleen Kennedy Townsend	2
Richard Celeste	1
Douglas Wilder	1

https://preview.redd.it/b0h8oebd9nih1.png?width=980&format=png&auto=webp&s=ff54848987d0425a4487185ad2f1c1707615f784

Ohioans Dump Mary, Dump Celeste at Caucus as DNC Chair Becomes Face of Democratic Revolt.

CLEVELAND, Ohio — What began as an attempt by Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Mary Bono to give Vice President Richard Celeste an early advantage in the 1996 presidential nomination fight has turned into a political rebellion. By the time Ohio Democrats gathered for their caucuses, “Dump Mary” had become less a campaign slogan than a movement, and by the time the votes were counted, Richard Celeste — the former Ohio governor who entered the race as the presumed establishment favorite — had suffered one of the most humiliating defeats of his political career.

The controversy began several weeks ago, when Bono defended the DNC's decision to make Ohio the party's first presidential contest. The choice had been widely seen as an effort to give Celeste an early victory and momentum heading into the rest of the primary season. Bono's television interview defending the decision was supposed to put the matter to rest. Instead, it re-ignited the fires of inter-party division. Asked why Iowa had been passed over, Bono repeatedly criticized the state and its voters, questioning whether Iowa's electorate was sufficiently representative of the Democratic Party and suggesting that the state's traditional position at the front of the calendar was based more on habit than merit.

The interview quickly became a political disaster. Iowa Democrats were furious. So were many Democrats outside Iowa who regarded Bono's comments as condescending. But the strongest reaction came from Iowa's senior United States Senator, Tom Harkin. Harkin had already been angry that his home state had been pushed aside in favor of Ohio. Now he was openly calling for Bono's resignation.

“She has lost the confidence of Democrats across this country,” Harkin said at a campaign appearance. “The Democratic Party deserves better than this.”

Tom Harkin has begun to call for the removal of DNC Chairwoman Mary Bono.

Supporters began appearing at his rallies carrying homemade signs reading "DUMP MARY", followed by T-shirts, buttons and bumper stickers bearing the same slogan. What had begun as an minor dispute over the primary calendar was quickly turning into a broader revolt against what many Democrats saw as an attempt by the party establishment to engineer the nomination.

Then Ann Richards joined in. The Texas governor, already one of Celeste's most formidable rivals, began incorporating “Dump Mary” rhetoric into her own campaign appearances. Her campaign store began selling its own merchandise, and Richards repeatedly attacked Bono's manipulation of the primary calendar. Jesse Jackson followed soon afterward. Soon, Jackson and Richards supporters were appearing alongside Harkin supporters at events, sometimes carrying nearly identical signs.

The attacks increasingly blurred the distinction between Bono and Celeste. The argument made by Harkin, Richards and Jackson supporters was simple: Bono had selected Ohio as specifically to benefit Celeste, and Celeste's campaign was therefore inseparable from an establishment effort to hand him the nomination. Celeste's supporters vehemently denied it. They argued that the Vice President had nothing to do with Bono's decision and was unfairly being punished for her mistakes, That defense became increasingly difficult to make as the controversy spread.

By the day of the Ohio caucuses, anti-Celeste activists were organizing in caucus locations throughout the state. Celeste's campaign accused its opponents of deliberately placing organizers in caucus rooms with instructions to redirect support away from him. Harkin, Jackson and Richards supporters denied any formal conspiracy, arguing that voters were simply rejecting what they called the “establishment candidate.” The atmosphere inside some caucus locations became openly hostile.

“Dump Mary!” protesters shouted outside and, in some locations, inside caucus venues.

The chant soon morphed into “Dump Celeste!”

Jesse Jackson embraces a supporter at a victory party in Akron.

Jesse Jackson narrowly won the state, powered by enormous turnout among Black voters in Cleveland and the surrounding urban areas. Richards finished second after running particularly well in rural and Appalachian Ohio. Harkin took third, dominating much of the agricultural western portion of the state. Al Gore finished a strong fourth, emerging as the clear leader of the party's moderate wing. However, the biggest surprises came further down the ballot. Skip Humphrey, a popular second-choice candidate whose supporters might have otherwise voted for Celeste, finished fifth. Douglas Applegate, a native Ohioan whose campaign has barely registered nationally, surged to sixth. The most stunning result: Richard Celeste got just 1.3 percent of the vote.

The former governor finished behind sixteen other candidates. He had been the man Ohio Democrats were supposedly going to rally around. Instead, he has been rejected by the same voters who elected him Governor just ten years ago. Celeste's campaign immediately blamed the result on an unprecedented negative campaign against him.

“The voters of Ohio were subjected to a campaign of misinformation, intimidation and political sabotage,” Celeste's campaign manager Kathleen Gilligan said.

Despite calls to resign, Mary Bono will remain DNC Chairwoman.

For Bono, however, the political consequences are now unavoidable. Calls for her resignation came from Democrats across the ideological spectrum. Regardless of allegiance, Democrats are increasingly arguing that Bono has lost the ability to administer a neutral presidential primary. Bono addressed the controversy publicly after the results were announced. She admitted that the decision to place Ohio first had generated controversy and conceded that her comments about Iowans had been “poorly received", but she rejected calls for her resignation.

“I was elected to lead the Democratic National Committee and I intend to continue doing that job,” she said. “I will not resign because some candidates are unhappy with decisions made by this committee.”

Celeste too has announced he's staying in the race. In an interview with the press last night, the Vice President said "Ohio is one contest, not a verdict on my campaign." He added: "Voters should judge me on my record rather than the political battles surrounding the opening contest. I've spent my career fighting for the people of this country, and I'm not going to walk away because a few weeks of political gamesmanship produced one bad night."

The DNC chose Ohio to give Celeste momentum, instead, they have given his opponents a cause to rally around. Mary Bono remains the DNC chairwoman, Richard Celeste remains a presidential candidate, and the Dump Mary Movement isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

The first two contests of the 1996 Republican Presidential Primary are finished. Here's how all eight major candidates did in the Alaska and Hawaii Caucuses.

Tom Ridge won the Hawaii Caucus and finished second in the Alaska Caucus

In Alaska, Ron Paul would win by a comfortable margin, with Tom Ridge in second. Paul received considerable support in the state from Senate Majority Leader Ted Stevens, who gave his endorsement to Paul early on in the race. In Hawaii, Ridge got his first victory, defeating Christine Todd Whitman by a slim margin. Paul would finish third. Terry Branstad, who was on the ballot in Alaska, but not in Hawaii, finished the night with three pledged delegates, the same number as George Voinovich and George W. Bush, two middle-tier candidates. Pat Robertson got two delegates, while Connie Mack III finished with just one.

Pat Robertson remains far too extreme for the Republican Party. He's dropping out of the Presidential race and endorsing George Voinovich.

After poor showings in the first two caucuses, Pat Robertson dropped out of the race, giving his endorsement to George Voinovich, another pro-life Republican. After Robertson endorsed him, Voinovich would see his poll numbers skyrocket as he became the preferred candidate for the religious right. Pre-Louisiana polling shows Ridge in first place, with a slight lead over Paul and Whitman. Terry Branstad is the clear fourth-place choice, with a surging George Voinovich solidly in fifth. George W. Bush is hanging on in sixth, hoping to build some momentum soon. Support for one candidate, Connie Mack III, has practically collapsed, as he's lost considerable support to Ridge, Voinovich, and Whitman. Pundits are already speculating that he could be out of the race before the New Hampshire Primary.

Voinovich would, in turn, see his poll numbers skyrocket.

Next up for the Republicans are caucuses in Iowa and Louisiana. Terry Branstad should win Iowa easily, as he is incredibly popular there. Louisiana, on the other hand, is a toss-up, but the slight favorite is Ron Paul, who won the state four years ago. However, anything can happen, and with the field so close at the top, one big primary win can completely change the race.

You can vote for your favorite candidates HERE.

State of the Race

Candidate	Delegate Count	Contests Won
Ron Paul	10	Alaska
Tom Ridge	9	Hawaii
Christine Todd Whitman	8
Terry Branstad	3
George W. Bush	3
George Voinovich	3
Pat Robertson (withdrawn)	2
Connie Mack III	1
Thomas Sowell (write-in)	1

First, 1992 Reform Party presidential nominee and current Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul announced that he'd gathered enough signatures to appear of the Reform Party primary ballot in all 50 states. He will not actively campaign for the Reform Party nomination as he did in 1992 - focusing instead on the Republican nomination, a nomination that he's got far stronger competition for. However, his name will appear on the ballot, and some Reform voters may vote for him again based on name recognition alone.

Oh no! Betsy McCaughey dropped out of the race! Who will Donald Trump waste millions of dollars on now!?!

Second, Betsy McCaughey dropped out of the race. Her exit comes amidst a FEC investigation opened to investigate illegal campaign contributions during her 1994 gubernatorial bid. In a statement to the press after her withdrawal, McCaughey claimed to be dropping her presidential bid to focus on the issues affecting New Yorkers. Yeah, right.

The Alaskan Champion is still the leader in this race. However, two candidates are well-positioned to dethrone him.

With McCaughey out of the race, polling shows that Mike Gravel is still in the lead. However, the distance between Gravel and all the other candidates has narrowed significantly over the last few months. Buddy Roemer and Richard Lamm are right behind Gravel, both within reach of the nomination. Far behind the top three candidates is Jack Gargan, who's found his niche among fiscal conservatives and Term Limits Amendment enthusiasts, but who is also polling pretty consistently below 10%. Gargan's chances of winning the nomination are slim. Ron Paul is excluded from most polls, as he is not actively campaigning for the Reform nomination. If he does well in Reform's first primary contest, the Iowa Caucus, maybe that will change. Once again, in Iowa, anything can happen.

You can vote for your favorite candidates HERE.

Out of all the presidential primaries in 1996, the race for the Green Party nomination is the most straightforward. As of right now, it's the only race with a clear front-runner, although, with one poorly-performing candidate dropping out of the race early, a few other candidates are pulling in new supporters, possibly enough to dethrone the man in first place.

Angela Davis will not run for President in 1996. She has thrown her support behind Governor of Vermont Mary Alice Herbert.

Billy McKinney tried to sell himself as a serious candidate for the Green Party Presidential nomination, despite having virtually no path to the nomination. His doubters were proven right when, before a single vote had even been cast, health issues forced McKinney to drop out of the race. He did not offer an endorsement, although his daughter, Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, did - she endorsed Mary Alice Herbert just a couple of days after her father exited the race. 1988 Green Party presidential nominee Angela Davis also gave her endorsement to Herbert before the first contest of the Green Party primaries, the Iowa Caucus. The leftist wing of the party appears to have made Herbert their consensus candidate.

Paul Wellstone answers a question at the first Green Party presidential debate.

Pre-Iowa polling shows Paul Wellstone with a good-sized lead over the rest of the field. Tom Hayden and Dennis Kucinich appear to be fighting for second place, with Herbert firmly in third. Dan Hamburg has seen his campaign momentum slow and his poll numbers drop, signaling that he may be the next candidate to drop out of the race. Wellstone should win Iowa. He did last year as an underdog running a far less sophisticated campaign. However, numerous primaries over the last two decades have shown that, in Iowa, anything can happen.

You can vote for your favorite candidate HERE.

Shortly before the first contests of the 1996 Republican Primary, set to occur simultaneously on January 30th in Alaska and Hawaii, a new candidate entered the race, immediately reshaping the entire field. That candidate is:

Governor of Iowa Terry Branstad

https://preview.redd.it/9uy3m05789hh1.png?width=600&format=png&auto=webp&s=62ab63988f9dd2ea8916369614e62423cc897c85

Terry Branstad has served as Governor of Iowa since 1983. Two years ago, he was re-elected to a fourth term as Governor, incredible, given that Iowa is a Democratic-leaning state on a national level. Branstad is popular for good reason. He's balanced the state budget and grown the state's economy. He's cut unemployment by more than five percent during his tenure as Governor. He's successfully lobbied for trade deals that would send Iowan agricultural products to China and the Soviet Union, helping Iowa's family farms prosper. He's also cut property tax rates after raising them earlier in his term to help cover a massive budget deficit.

Branstad has a strong conservative record. He's pro-business and prefers low taxes and balanced budgets. However, he's also fiscally responsible, and did not hesitate to raise taxes when it became absolutely necessary to keep necessary services funded. Branstad is also a social conservative, but once again, he's approached social issues with a more pragmatic approach than some of his Republican peers. He's avoided unwinnable battles as Governor, focusing on issues he his office gave him control over than going on ideological crusades against social battles that'd already been settled by federal law. As Governor, he expanded gun rights in Iowa and signed a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. The Iowa State Legislature also passed a law prohibiting openly gay individuals from serving as state employees, but Branstad vetoed the bill after the Supreme Court ruled a similar law in South Carolina unconstitutional.

Christine Todd Whitman and her husband at a campaign event.

With Branstad running, the lesser-known conservative candidates in the primary field quickly fell in line. Dick Cheney, Dan Lungren, and Carroll Campbell all dropped on in rapid succession, all endorsing Branstad. With the field consolidating behind him, Branstad is pretty much guaranteed a win in Iowa, the fourth Republican primary contest in 1996. Aggregate polling shows Branstad in fourth place nationwide, behind Ron Paul, Tom Ridge, and Christine Todd Whitman, the race's three co-front runners, who are struggling to separate from each other early in this race. Behind Branstad, Connie Mack III and George Voinovich are both holding strong. Meanwhile, Branstad's entry into the race has blunted the momentum of George W. Bush and Pat Robertson, both of whom are barely hanging on in this race.

However, no votes have been cast yet. After voters in Alaska and Hawaii decide who they want their nominee to be, this race will be much, much clearer. You can cast your vote HERE.

DNC Chairwoman Mary Bono.

The first contest of the 1996 Democratic presidential primaries is coming up soon, and the party is still nowhere close to coalescing around a nominee. The field has been cut down a little bit, with two low-polling candidates dropping out, but there's still 18 major candidates remaining and no clear front-runner among them. Here's how we got here:

In early 1995, Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Mary Bono awarded the nation's first Democratic Primary of the season - usually in Iowa or New Hampshire - to Ohio instead. This was seen as a not-so-secret attempt by the DNC to give an upper hand in the primary to Vice President Richard Celeste, who remains very popular in his home state.

The Ohio Primary is a toss-up, but if national aggregate polling is to be trusted, your winner is Ann Richards.

Polling suggests a Celeste win in Ohio is far from guaranteed. National polling has been all over the place as of late. Ann Richards has been the most common first-choice candidate in polls, but there are polls that came out in January 1996 showing Richard Celeste, Tom Harkin, and Jesse Jackson in first place too. Kathleen Sullivan Alioto, who was expected to be a front-runner in this race, has seen her poll numbers drop considerably as the Ohio Primary approaches. She's been hammered hard by the four leading progressives for her personal wealth and willingness to accept large corporate donations. Her decline has opened the door for Mario Cuomo and Al Gore, two moderates with a lot less controversy and a lot more middle-class appeal, to rise in the polls.

Skip Humphrey has also seen his poll numbers climb, finding a real niche among voters who want a compromise candidate who's closer to the center on economic issues while still maintaining legitimate progressive credibility. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend is also rising in the polls, although that can be attributed to Robert F. Kennedy appearing at a few recent campaign rallies with his daughter. Behind Humphrey and Kennedy Townsend is Bill Bradley, and behind Bradley, there's Bob Graham and Bill Nelson, who are polling at such similar percentages it's hard to tell who's Bob and who's Bill. Douglas Wilder, Paul Pelosi, Bob Kerrey, and Doug Applegate register in most polls, but none of them usually get over 5%. Chris Dodd and Chet Edwards aren't even registering in some early January polls.

Al Gore is rapidly consolidating support among moderates. He has the potential to be a top-tier candidate in this race.

Two candidates, Bruce Babbitt and Tim Wirth, struggling to even get on the board in pre-Ohio polls, dropped out of the race before a single vote had been cast. Wirth was the first candidate to drop out. His endorsement would go to Richard Celeste, whom he had developed a close relationship while they served together in Dick Van Dyke's cabinet. Babbitt dropped out a few days later, endorsing a fellow environmentally-oriented moderate, Al Gore. Even with Babbitt and Wirth out of the race, the Democratic Primary field is far too large to read with any accuracy. Who wins in Ohio in a few days is really anybody's guess.

As always, you can vote for your favorites HERE.

Since the last time the Reform Party held presidential primaries, a lot has changed. An internal coup led by billionaire donor Donald Trump ousted founding chairman Phil Crane in an attempt to pivot the party away from reactionary right wing politics and towards an ideology of big-tent populism. In the years that followed, a new chairman, former Congressman Beryl Anthony, was appointed, and soon after, former President Mike Gravel joined too. Gravel's defection legitimized the party, and the high-profile defections of Senators Keith Goodenough and Richard Lamm in response to the Democrats' support for the North American Free Trade Agreement made Reform a real force in American politics. They now boast two Senators, eight Representatives, and three state governorships.

Now, they need to choose who will get their party's nomination for the presidency in 1996. Does their nominee have a chance in November? Not really, but it depends on who they choose. They've got five major candidates running, each with their own level of electability. Although the Greens have come close a couple of times, no third party nominee has ever become President of the United States without a major party's help. Still, elections are unpredictable, and anything can happen once the first vote is cast.

On that note, the first Reform Party Presidential candidate is:

Former President Mike Gravel of Alaska

https://preview.redd.it/dj6516h4jvgh1.png?width=1024&format=png&auto=webp&s=d8311a5effa50a6017ac2b9d4db01246214b559c

Mike Gravel is a political force who needs little introduction, but I'll give one regardless. In 1984, Gravel, the eccentric third-term Senator from Alaska, ran a longshot bid for President that tapped in to populist anger over eight years of growing inequality and industrial decline during the Kemp administration. His campaign was scandal-ridden and he ran through multiple running mates, but somehow, he surprised political pundits by capturing the White House in a landslide.

As President, Gravel did a lot of great things. He invested billions of dollars into the nation's infrastructure. He implemented protective tariffs to protect American manufacturing. He partially nationalized the savings and loan industry, saving thousands of American families from financial ruin. He dismantled the surveillance state. And, most importantly, he sowed the seeds that eventually ended the Cold War. He also had his fair share of scandals - most infamously his decision to shut down every nuclear power plant in the country following the Chernobyl disaster, sending the country into a years-long energy crisis that triggered a global recession.

In 1988, Gravel lost the Democratic presidential nomination to political novice Dick Van Dyke. What followed was an epic crash out that saw him burn every bridge he had left in the Democratic Party. His 1988 run for President as a loosely-affiliated member of the People's Party netted him less than 10% of the vote. His 1992 Independent run? Less than 5%. Running out of options to stay politically relevant, Gravel joined the Reform Party in 1993. His hopes for a second term now rest on winning the Reform presidential nomination. He's campaigning on many of the same things he did twelve years ago. Surprisingly, a lot of it still scarily relevant years later. He's also got a few oddball ideas, as usual. He supports participatory democracy, and, as part of that, he's campaigned to abolish the electoral college and create a process for federal ballot initiatives. He's promised a huge subsidy for hydrogen-powered automobiles. He wants to build futuristic "Gravel Cities" on federal land. It's your typical Gravel stuff. Gravel still has die-hard supporters all across the country, but especially in rural America. However, he's struggled to win over younger voters. Baby Boomers, who were young adults in the 1980s, remember Gravel as a champion of the American working class. Gen Xers, who were children in the 1980s, remember Gravel as the reason their lights weren't on when they got up every morning. He's got a long way to go if he wants to return to his old job as President of the United States.

Senator Richard Lamm of Colorado

https://preview.redd.it/o34a5n4zivgh1.png?width=1600&format=png&auto=webp&s=43ee45cb44cb3541e68a0e8ec8e3a78f3482d370

Richard Lamm, a first-term Senator who also served three terms as Governor of Colorado in the 1970s and 1980s, is a former Gravel Movement devotee who has since distanced himself from the former President. Lamm is most famous for defecting from the Democratic Party in oppisition to the North American Free Trade Agreement and joining with the Republican Party to obstruct President Dick Van Dyke's political appointments for a three-month stretch in 1994.

Lamm paints an interesting political profile of himself. He first gained notoriety as an environmental activist who protested a highway expansion through the Denver suburbs and helped quash Denver's bid to host the 1976 Winter Olympics, which were eventually held in Vancouver. He was also a vocal supporter of the nuclear shutdown in the 1980s, and continues to oppose nuclear energy today. His main priority now is population control - protecting America's natural resources through federally-financed efforts to keep America's population growth at zero. He supports liberal access to abortion rights and contraception and is a leading advocated for medically-assisted dying for people with terminal illness. He is also a leader of the anti-immigration movement, and sponsored a bill in the last Congress which would drastically reduce immigration levels - legal and illegal. Lamm is also a fiscal conservative who wants to balance the budget - a major reason for his divorce from the Gravel Movement, a political ideology centered around a President described as "the King of Deficit Spending". Lamm has evolved past the Gravel Movement. Is it time for the Reform Party to do so too?

Governor of Louisiana Buddy Roemer

https://preview.redd.it/di7p02z78vgh1.png?width=1727&format=png&auto=webp&s=2ce5aec38d34d192d797edb148eea55e54f685f1

Buddy Roemer is another Gravel Movement veteran. Roemer was one of the first sitting Congressmen to endorse Gravel in 1984. Roemer was handsomely rewarded, being named as Deputy Secretary of Commerce. After the 1986 cabinet re-shuffle, Roemer became the administration's technology policy czar, where he wielded a lot of power over domestic economic policy decisions.

In 1991, he ran for Governor of Louisiana as an Independent and lost. In 1995, he ran as a member of the Reform Party, and, to much surprise, he won. Roemer is a captivating campaigner. During his 1995 gubernatorial campaign, he pledged to slay the dragon of political corruption and out-of-control spending that had plagued Louisiana politics for decades. As Governor, he's led an initiative to increase government transparency. He's also tried his best to balance the state budget and hold corrupt officials accountable - going so far as to investigate his predecessor, John Breaux, for accepting illegal campaign contributions for oil and gas corporations. Roemer is a progressive conservative: cautious on spending, but more liberal on social issues. He famously vetoed a restrictive anti-abortion bill passed by the Louisiana State Legislature, protecting Louisiana women's right to choose. He has also spearheaded the (so far unsuccessful) attempt to pass the Term Limits Amendment in the Pelican State. Roemer is probably the Reform Party's best candidate if the goal is winning the general election. However, his campaign infrastructure is shaky at best, and his staff is inexperienced. However, with his generational campaigning prowess, any obstacle can be overcome.

Governor of New York Betsy McCaughey

https://preview.redd.it/6m02chz38vgh1.png?width=1200&format=png&auto=webp&s=e0b92bbfcf48052df88e03d297f0c7c946dd0366

You'd be hard-pressed to find an American politician more controversial than Betsy McCaughey. Two years ago, she was a college professor and conservative commentator. It was in that role that she caught the eye of billionaire Donald Trump, a New York City real estate mogul who has been the Reform Party's chief financial supporter for over a decade. Originally a supporter of New York's three-term Governor, Mario Cuomo, their personal relationship went south after the state went after the Trump Organizaiton for a shady land deal in Manhattan. In retaliation, Trump recruited McCaughey to challenge Cuomo's re-election bid and funneled millions of dollars into her campaign. Against all odds, she won.

Her tenure as Governor has been tumultuous. On her first day in office, she deregulated the financial services and real estate industries, eliminating dozens of regulations put in place by her predecessor. The biggest benefactors were, uncoincidentally, her biggest donors. Her two "signature" pieces of legislation are both very flawed: a welfare reform bill that erroneously removed thousands of low-income families from the welfare roll due to confusing - and at times contradictory - conditions for receiving benefits and a healthcare reform bill that trimmed hundreds of millions of dollars from the state's healthcare administration budget at the cost of crippling rural hospitals. She's also endorsed a bizarre conspiracy theory speculating that childcare centers are fronts for a ring of human trafficking and ritual abuse. She spent millions of dollars of taxpayer money investigating the conspiracy, only to come up empty-handed.

In two years, McCaughey is almost guaranteed defeat when she runs for re-election. Popular New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani is already preparing to challenge her, and he leads by double digits in head-to-head polling. So, why not run for President? She runs as a fiscal conservative, calling for spending cuts to help balance the budget. She's signaled that all social programs, even Social Security and Medicare, are on the table when it comes to cuts. However, her positions on social issues are more liberal. She supports abortion rights and same-sex marriage, and has called for the abolition of the electoral college - all progressive positions that she held different positions on when she ran for Governor less than two years ago. Her proposal to abolish the electoral college was lifted word-for-word from the Gravel campaign's platform - it's been a staple of the movement's goals for years. Betsy McCaughey is America's biggest political fraud. And yet, with as much money as she's rolling in, she very well could win this nomination battle.

Chairman of the Reform Party of Florida Jack Gargan

https://preview.redd.it/aouzbca23vgh1.png?width=612&format=png&auto=webp&s=357e13ed8a51476d44adc2988ae206a288ede714

Jack Gargan is a wealthy financial consultant and university professor from Florida. In the 1970s, Gargan served on the Tampa City Council. Then, in the 1980s, he was a campaign manager for Bob Martinez, a former Democratic Governor of Florida who was recently appointed to the Reform Party's national steering committee. Gargan is best known as the father of the Term Limits Amendment, after he played a crucial role in drafting Florida's version of the Term Limits Amendment, which failed to pass in the State Legislature in 1989.

Gargan runs for President as a fiscal conservative. He wants to cut spending and balance the budget. He's also rabidly anti-corruption, frequently criticizing Congress for being bought by special interest groups in campaign speeches. He's called for the public financing of elections in order to root out the influence of dirty money in American politics. He's also called for the abolition of the electoral college. Gargan's campaign largely avoids social issues. Due to his wealth, connections, and media notoriety, he's seen as a serious candidate for the Reform Party nomination. However, his bid is a longshot at best.

Now that you've read about all the candidates, you can vote for your favorites HERE.

The last eight years have been a mixed bag for progressives. In 1984, they thought that they'd found lightning in a bottle, co-opting the Gravel movement and riding its populist fervor to a position of incredible power in the federal government. But then, Gravel crashed and burned as president, and in the years after leaving office, his movement has moved further and further right, alienating his left-wing allies in the process. Dick Van Dyke was no better. Sure, he was a social progressive who helped bring low-cost childcare to every American family and advance the gay rights movement by decades, but he was also an economic centrist who undid all of the progressive economic legislation put in place by the Gravel regime, replacing it with a suite of free trade and pro-business policies that've exacerbated the decline of the American manufacturing sector and the Rust Belt region as a whole. His action on climate change has been largely symbolic, with a lot of bipartisan compromise and media optimism, but not a lot of real substance. For those on the American left, there's a strong belief that a true progressive - not an opportunistic populist or a socially progressive neoliberal - could do a lot better for this country.

That's where the Green Party comes in. Since their founding in 1990, they've been the left-wing alternative to two parties, the Democrats and Republicans, who are fighting to control the political center. Their 1996 Presidential primary is crucial, as it will select the nominee who will carry the Green Party banner in a year where the White House is open and progressives have a genuine shot at winning it. Six major candidates have declared. Let's meet them all:

Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota

https://preview.redd.it/vqwgi8vblggh1.png?width=650&format=png&auto=webp&s=fcd25f906ae2bb9f9312fddfc49b26d392a6e23c

Paul Wellstone, the 1992 Green Party presidential nominee, is seen as this race's early front-runner. Wellstone began his political career as an activist and community organizer. He joined the People's Party in the 1970s, running an unsuccessful campaign for U.S. Senate in 1978. In the 1980s, he supported the Gravel Movement, managed the Gravel campaign in Minnesota, and even served as an advisor in the Gravel cabinet before being dismissed for "disloyalty" shortly before the 1988 election. Four years later, he re-emerged, winning the Green Party presidential primary and getting almost 20% of the vote in the general election, campaigning as a serious, governing politician.

He runs in 1996 as an economic populist. He's pro-union, supports protective tariffs, and would wield the federal government's nationalization power far more liberally than Dick Van Dyke did as President. He opposes income tax reductions for wealthy individuals and corporations. After Christine Todd Whitman announced a universal basic income plan as a centerpiece of her campaign, Wellstone announced one of his own, which was similar to Whitman's in some ways, but also placed a greater emphasis on supporting low-income families, seniors, and veterans. He's also socially progressive, supporting stronger action to fight climate change, abortion rights, affirmative action, and same-sex marriage. He's also promised to eliminate tuition for all public community colleges, giving low-income Americans an affordable pathway to higher education. Wellstone is also a committed pacifist who's opposed to using American troops to intervene in any foreign conflicts. Instead, he hopes to use America as a third-party mediator that can resolve international conflict diplomatically. Once again, he runs as a consistent ideological progressive who is level-headed and ready to govern. That's exactly the kind of nominee who will get Americans to seriously consider voting the Green Party into the White House.

Governor of California Tom Hayden

https://preview.redd.it/fsj8yf0xhggh1.png?width=976&format=png&auto=webp&s=20eea2fa6affddef43722890b67e1544bb0d3c04

Tom Hayden, the Governor of California since 1991, is the highest office holder in Green Party history, which is astonishing in its own right, considering his political trajectory over the past three decades.

In the 1960s and 70s, Hayden was a left-wing activist who protested for the Civil Rights Movement and against the Vietnam War. He helped get Robert F. Kennedy elected in 1968, but soon turned on Kennedy due to corruption within his administration and his struggle to deal with the stagnating economy of the mid-1970s. He helped found the People's Party in 1973, and emerged as an early leader of it's more radical wing. He lost the party's presidential nomination in 1976 and again in 1980. Then, in 1984, he ran for a State Senate seat in California and won. While serving in the California State Senate, his beliefs became somewhat more mainstream. That didn't stop him from helping his close friend Angela Davis, a socialist, deny the People's Party presidential nomination from Mike Gravel in 1988. Two years later, Hayden was at the forefront of the deal that merged the Angela Davis-supporting wing of the People's Party with the old Green Party, creating the Green Party we know today.

Hayden is a bit more pragmatic in his economic progressivism than Paul Wellstone is. He's a lot more cautious about protectionism, and has expressed hesitancy to use the federal government's nationalization power except in extreme circumstances. He compensates for that by being a national leader for progressive social causes. While serving in the State Senate, he co-sponsored a bill that decriminalized same-sex relations. Then, as Governor, he signed a constitutional amendment guaranteeing equal rights to LGBT Californians. He's also been serious about the climate crisis, creating the California Department of Environmental Protection and signing into law some of the strictest anti-pollution legislation in the country. Hayden is also a bit of a celebrity, half due to his status as the Governor of the nation's largest state, and half due to his marriage to Hollywood actress Jane Fonda. Hayden's got a lot of media attention and plenty of governing experience, as well as the support of some of the party's biggest donors. Many within the Green Party see him as the candidate most likely to win them the White House in November.

Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio

https://preview.redd.it/0g7rur1qdggh1.png?width=612&format=png&auto=webp&s=7f7c2b8a7856afeb212b55d94246e61e29638a0c

Dennis Kucinich needs little introduction. He's served in Congress since 1973. From 1977 until it merged into the Green Party in 1990, Kucinich led the People's Party caucus. He's led the Green Party caucus ever since. He's been incredibly effective in that role, championing pro-labor and progressive legislation in a body that, throughout his tenure, has usually been dominated by more mainstream Democrats. He even negotiated the Green Party into a majority coalition in 1995.

He runs for President as an economic populist, with strong support from labor union groups. He supports protective tariffs and nationalization, with a key piece of his platform being transitioning private companies that provide electricity, water, and telecommunications services into public ownership. He's introduced a bill to accomplish this in every House session he's been a part of, but it has never passed. For the most part, his social positions are in line with the rest of the party. He's strongly anti-war and has generally supported gay rights legislation and environmental protection laws while in Congress. However, he is also part of the Green Party's small but vocal anti-abortion faction, placing him in sharp contrast to his pro-choice primary opponents. He also notably opposed the confirmation of fellow Ohioan Richard Celeste as Vice President, a move now seen in poor taste due to his support for labor progressivism since assuming that office. That could complicate his ability to claim the Green Party presidential nomination in 1996.

Congressman Dan Hamburg of California

https://preview.redd.it/nxmqdt7m1ggh1.png?width=257&format=png&auto=webp&s=1cce2b315e622f13e58a6bd02f27eac474c291b5

Dan Hamburg, who's represented California's coastal first district in the House of Representatives since 1993, is best known as the most fervent environmentalist in Congress. His campaign focuses less on economic issues than his primary opponents. Instead, he runs as a single-issue candidate, arguing for an approach to the climate crisis that is far more aggressive than anyone else running for President in 1996.

Hamburg's platform includes a pledge to protect millions of acres of undeveloped land and divest federal government funding from fossil fuel production, instead shifting that money towards a generous subsidy for clean energy and alternative fuel sources. He's also promised to invest billions into science, research, and ambitious climate restoration projects across the country. He is seen as unlikely to win the Green Party presidential nomination, but his climate-first policy platform should warrant consideration for a cabinet role should the Green Party claim the White House this November.

Governor of Vermont Mary Alice Herbert

https://preview.redd.it/03hj34e2zfgh1.png?width=480&format=png&auto=webp&s=e2059313923e10ad7940f23d34df4e0dba819a36

This sweet old lady is Mary Alice Herbert, an elementary school teacher and environmental activist who served as Lieutenant Governor of Vermont under Bernie Sanders before becoming Governor herself in 1992. Herbert is the only democratic socialist running for the Green Party presidential nomination in 1996. Accordingly, she is the furthest left on economic issues of all the candidates running.

Herbert is a major proponent of publicly-owned financial institutions. As Governor of Vermont, her greatest achievement was establishing the Bank of Vermont, a state-owned investment bank. Herbert's other unique policy proposals include eliminating tuition for all public universities and implementing rent control at the federal level. Herbert is also a social progressive. She's a devoted feminist who wants to seriously address the gender wage gap. She's also a lifelong environmentalist and a committed supporter of gay rights. Despite having a lot of great ideas, Herbert has struggled in the polls. She's a gentle, mild-mannered, and non-confrontational campaigner who doesn't have the same grassroots pull as Bernie Sanders does. However, her kindly demeanor also puts her in a good position to be the vice presidential nominee if a more charismatic candidate, say, Hayden, Kucinich, or Wellstone, wins this primary.

State Representative Billy McKinney of Georgia

https://preview.redd.it/d38dekmewfgh1.png?width=3840&format=png&auto=webp&s=9dff444ef62d43df4a3a0c750fe19b2b721d8b31

Every good primary needs a villain. In the 1996 Green Party presidential primaries, that man is Billy McKinney, a Georgia State Representative and the father of Green Party Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney. Early in his career, McKinney did some genuinely great things to advance civil rights and other progressive causes in the State of Georgia. He helped integrate the Atlanta Police Department, spearheaded the state's passage of the Equal Rights Amendment, and he helped transform the Green Party into a legitimate political force in Metro Atlanta. However, in his old age, he's increasingly seen as too loud, too stubborn, and too old-fashioned. He's also never been afraid to stir up some controversy.

In defending his economic populist campaign platform, he's described mainstream Democrats and Republicans as "anti-poor". He's praised deeply-conservative Republican candidate Dan Lungren's tough-on-crime policies while simultaneously scolding his Green Party opponents for voting against a repeal of the Juan Romero Gun Control Act. He's also scolded his opponents for their pro-LGBT rights positions, being described by media outlets as a "gay basher". McKinney's been scandal-prone for decades. He's instigated fights with fellow state legislatures. He was arrested for trying to carry a firearm into state legislative chambers. He's made antisemitic comments in interviews with reporters. This is a deeply unserious campaign with no shot of winning the nomination.

However, some good has come out of his candidacy. His proposal to decouple school district funding from property taxes was recently adopted by fellow candidate Mary Alice Herbert, proving that new ideas can flourish in the Green Party, even when they come from unconventional sources.

Now that you've met all the candidates, you can vote for your favorite HERE.

Lee Atwater is dead. Roger Stone is in prison. Is the Republican Party's decade of failure and humiliation finally over?

The Republican Party has been shut out of the White House for twelve years after their unfathomable defeat at the hands of Mike Gravel in the 1984 Presidential election. In the aftermath, they spent eight years mired in mediocrity, developing a reputation for being bland, corporate, and soulless while the Democratic party nominated populists and Hollywood celebrities.

However, the tables are turning in their favor once again. Dick Van Dyke's presidency has seen the Democrats drift once again towards the political center, as, in an attempt to rebuild the American economy after the late 1980s recession, he's ushered in an era of pro-business and free trade policies that wouldn't feel out of place in the Kemp Administration. Better yet, he did it with ample Republican help, allowing them to claim some credit for rejuvenating the economy. As the Cold War ended and the 1980s became the 1990s, Republicans started winning again. They flipped the Senate in 1990, came close to winning the White House in 1992, and made even more Congressional gains in 1994. They need a candidate in 1996 who will build on their recent momentum and, hopefully, lead them to the White House once again. For the most part, they've abandoned their regressive 1980s policy ideas in favor of a embracing social progressivism and environmentalism and focusing on tax reform, anti-corruption legislation, and building a 21st century economy. The Republican Party is becoming cool again, and now, they need a nominee who will reinforce that narrative.

The top three candidates in the 1996 Republican presidential primaries are all familiar faces. The odds are heavily in favor of one of these three repeat candidates being the 1996 nominee. All three are deeply unique, both policy and personality-wise, draw from different bases, and come with their own merits and shortcomings. Each one of them represents a bold step in a new direction for a party on the upswing.

Senator Ron Paul of Texas

https://preview.redd.it/i4stt5rhzufh1.png?width=554&format=png&auto=webp&s=43d76af2219fbc525930ce66afe19dea24076c10

Going in to 1996, Ron Paul remains the Republican Party's ideological visionary.

Paul began his career in national politics in the House of Representatives, where he served from 1975 to 1985. He was a member of the Libertarian Party for his first four terms in Congress before switching to the Republican Party in 1983 as the Libertarian Party collapsed around him. In exchange for switching parties, the RNC supported him in the primary for a hotly-contested open Senate seat in Texas. He won that seat, comfortably defeating a well-funded Democratic opponent in a blue wave year. Then, eight years later, he came out of nowhere to win the presidential nomination for the Republican Party and the Reform Party, coming closer to the White House than any Republican had since 1980.

His platform in 1992 was transformational. After a decade of stale policy proposals, uninspiring candidates, and tepid voter turnout, Paul revitalized the Republican Party around a proposal to drastically reduce income and capital gains tax rates and offset those cuts with a national sales tax and a wealth tax on Americans with a net worth over $10 million. He wanted to return the authority to run social programs to the states and reverse a decade of consolidation of federal power. He wanted to slash the pentagon budget and pull the United States out of overseas conflicts. He proposed innovative solutions to the climate crisis, including transferring federal land to privately-owned conservation trusts to protect it from development and resource extraction and managing industrial carbon emissions through a cap and trade system. He also promised to keep the federal government out of decisions regarding abortion, drug policy, and gay rights, holding individual liberties paramount above federal regulation. Finally, he was an early proponent of the Term Limits Amendment, seeing it as a solution to corruption and inefficiency at the highest levels of American government.

Most of that revolutionary 1992 platform returns in 1996. The wealth tax is gone, as expected. Paul himself is very open about that particular policy being a concession made to the moderate wing of the party in order to consolidate support for his nomination. In it's place, Paul has proposed major spending cuts to dozens of executive branch departments and programs, some of which saw their budgets balloon under the Gravel and Van Dyke administrations. He has, however, promised to keep Social Security and Medicare intact. Paul's staunch fiscal conservatism is far from a detriment, even for populist voters who support a strong social safety net. He campaigns as an outsider, and his steadfast fiscal conservatism is part of that appeal. His biggest issue is his record of obstructionism. Along with two close allies, he torpedoed a bipartisan budget compromise and shut down the federal government. His conduct during the 1995 budget wars has been weaponized by his primary opponents, who call him out as uniquely unfit to govern. Still, he's got the visionary policy acumen of Kemp and a grassroots base rivaling the Gravel Movement. He'll be hard to beat in 1996.

Governor of Pennsylvania Tom Ridge

https://preview.redd.it/9mwlf71gaufh1.png?width=600&format=png&auto=webp&s=ce6788560c46cfb61c11e26a1642cdef171c5242

Tom Ridge has served as Governor of Pennsylvania since 1991. Before that, he served three terms in the House of Representatives. As the Governor of Pennsylvania, he's seen as the heir apparent to the state's Keystone Republican dynasty. He touts a full slate of endorsements from his faction's political heavyweights: Bob Casey, Lee Iacocca, Teresa Heinz, Richard Schweiker, and Arlen Specter. His platform is typical for a Keystone Republican: he's pro-union and supports maintaining a strong social safety net. He wants to balance the budget. He opposes the Paul-Whitman Tax Cut and is cautious when it comes to balancing international trade interests with protecting American jobs in the Rust Belt. He's also a social conservative, but is uniquely pragmatic about it, eschewing the anti-abortion absolutism of his predecessors as Governor of Pennsylvania and focusing instead on issues that fall more directly under his jurisdiction. As Governor, he's enacted tough-on-crime policies and increased funding for local police departments. He also protected students' right to religious expression in a major education reform bill he signed in 1994.

In certain regions of the United States, especially the Northeast and Industrial Midwest, Ridge is practically unbeatable in a Republican Primary. His odds of winning the 1996 nomination are good after a close second-place finish in 1992. He's already trying to pitch himself to Independents for the general election, selling himself as a pragmatic moderate. However, his very visible role in removing Jesse Jackson from the vice presidential ballot in Pennsylvania four years ago has made him a polarizing figure nationally, and that could hurt his chances of reclaiming the White House for the GOP.

Senator Christine Todd Whitman of New Jersey

https://preview.redd.it/kgeokyzq5ufh1.png?width=1200&format=png&auto=webp&s=5f26aa6d3f3c06b3be4010f0f83b4a3a010e191a

In 1990, Christine Todd Whitman, then an obscure cabinet member serving in the administration of New Jersey Governor Tom Kean, unseated two-term Democratic incumbent Bill Bradley in one of the most surprising upsets in a Senate race in decades. Two years later, she was the Republican nominee for Vice President alongside Ron Paul. Now, she's one of the front runners for the 1996 Republican Presidential nomination.

Whitman, who credits her 1990 Senate victory to anti-tax sentiment - Bradley had authored a major tax raise a year prior - is a chief architect and eponym of the Paul-Whitman Tax Cut, a revolutionary tax reform bill which proposed a major reduction in income tax rates, offset by the introduction of two new taxes: a national sales tax and a wealth tax on people with a net worth over $10 million. Ron Paul, in his 1996 Presidential campaign, has dropped the wealth tax from his platform, instead advocating for spending cuts. Whitman, on the other hand, has made it the centerpiece of her campaign. She wants to combat rising inequality rates by shifting the tax burden from the middle-class to the ultra-rich by eliminating taxes on economic productivity and taxing wealth instead. She's also proposed an ambitious universal basic income proposal that would sent $500 to every American over the age of 18.

Whitman is just as progressive on social issues as Ron Paul, if not more. She supports abortion rights, has consistently supported gay rights legislation, and served as a crucial Senate vote in favor of environmental protection and green energy subsidies. Whitman has, however, drawn some criticism for her criminal justice reform proposal, which would enact harsher penalties for drug dealing and illegal firearm possession and is seen by some as unfairly targeting African-American communities. Nevertheless, her policy platform has been acclaimed as ahead of its time by pundits, drawing a lot of similarities to Jack Kemp, the last Republican to win the White House. However, some Republican institutionalists question her party loyalty and whether her values truly align with the values of the party.

Outside of the top three contenders, a handful of other major candidates are contending for the Republican Presidential nomination. All of them are considered unlikely to win, but recent history has shown that anything can happen in a wide-open presidential primary.

Former Congressman George W. Bush of Texas

https://preview.redd.it/m6rwdktq1ufh1.png?width=1200&format=png&auto=webp&s=93523392e7725eb5eb29300dbaf75fde16864ad3

George W. Bush is the son of George H.W. Bush, a deeply-respected Republican institutionalist who served four terms in the Senate from 1971 to 1995. The younger Bush also has Congressional experience, representing a West Texas district in the House between 1979 and 1995. He burst onto the national political scene in 1994, when he ran a high-profile challenge to Governor of Texas Ann Richards's re-election bid. While he ultimately lost that race, he established himself as a distinct political entity from his father with noticeably more conservative positions on some major issues.

For example, while both Bushes support tax cuts, George W. Bush goes one step further, also supporting major welfare reform. He is also an ardent defender of gun rights, in contrast to his father, who opposed a repeal of the Juan Romero Gun Control Act and a supporter of tough-on-crime policies to combat rising rates of violence in America's inner cities, in contrast to his father, who supported a more compassionate approach to criminal justice. Bush is also a big proponent of renewable energy, helping secure funding for America's largest wind farm, located in his district, while he was a Congressman. Bush's campaign has been rocky in it's early stages. He is seen as uncharismatic and blunder-prone, and has been accused of nepotism by his primary opponents, a well-founded complaint, considering his father and brother are both major campaign donors. If he does reasonably well in 1996, he's got a bright future in national politics ahead of him. If he struggles, this could be the end of the Bush political dynasty.

Former Governor of South Carolina Carroll Campbell Jr.

https://preview.redd.it/yol2utohytfh1.png?width=612&format=png&auto=webp&s=476926361133336d5141c14db82b1ba74c9dd870

Carroll Campbell Jr. served as Governor of South Carolina from 1987 to 1995. Before that, he served four terms in the House of Representatives. Campbell was one of America's most conservative Governors during his time in office. He's most famous for signing a bill prohibiting the state from hiring openly gay employees, a law which was later repealed after it was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. In addition to his activist stance against gay rights, he also opposes abortion and affirmative action. At the beginning of his career in South Carolina politics in the 1970s, he held segregationist viewpoints, although his stance on racial issues has moderated since then.

Campbell is also a fiscal conservative who supports welfare reform and the Paul-Whitman Tax Cut. As Governor of South Carolina, his state earned a reputation for being business-friendly, as the regulatory policies he helped pass brought thousands of manufacturing jobs to the Palmetto State. Unfortunately, his state also had a reputation for fiscal mismanagement during his tenure as Governor, during which the president of the University of South Carolina resigned due to an embezzlement scandal and several members of the Governor's cabinet were indicted for bribery. Campbell has also been endorsed by Oliver North, the former Governor of Virginia who's actively being run out of the party for his close ties to the far right. Campbell's tendency to get caught up in major scandals has badly hurt his campaign and contributed to the large number of right-wing candidates in the 1996 Republican Presidential primary field.

Businessman Dick Cheney of Wyoming

https://preview.redd.it/6lixm3r0wtfh1.png?width=728&format=png&auto=webp&s=5876ebef81a98d41688201c4ff6c1ed55d537419

Decades ago, Dick Cheney was a high-level official in the Department of Defense in the Kemp Administration. In that role, he helped influence Kemp's interventionist approach to foreign policy. After Kemp left office in 1985, Cheney transitioned to the private sector. He's now employed as the CEO of the Sinclair Oil Corporation, one of America's largest oil and gas giants. After a over decade away from public service, Cheney is now staging a bid for the Presidency.

Cheney supports the Paul-Whitman Tax Cut and the Term Limits Amendment, and has called for tightening welfare requirements and shifting the money saved towards a major re-investment in national defense. He also rejects the national consensus on climate change, questioning whether carbon emissions are harming the environment as much as the world's top scientists claim. He supports a full repeal of the National Climate Action Plan, calling it an unconstitutional burden on private enterprise. In a post-Cold War era where climate change is supplanting the Soviet Union as America's greatest threat, that's a bold position to center a campaign around.

Former Representative Dan Lungren of California

https://preview.redd.it/7azr5fwettfh1.png?width=1024&format=png&auto=webp&s=7c38d4c68f7b16f37dab31d872cd408850988e68

From 1975 to 1989, Dan Lungren represented California in the House of Representatives. In 1988, he retired from the House and instead challenged Senator George Brown Jr., who was running for re-election to a fourth term, and lost. He hosted a conservative radio show for a few years, then re-emerged as the Republican challenger to California Governor Tom Hayden in his re-election bid. Lungren lost that election as well. Now, he's running for President.

Lungren styles himself as a protege of Ronald Reagan, a polarizing political figure who served as California's Governor from 1967 to 1975, and who unsuccessfully ran for President in 1972 (and briefly, 1976). His two signature issues are crime and immigration. Lungren has promised to toughen border security and sanction companies that are caught hiring illegal immigrants with fines and jail time and enact tough-on-crime policies nationwide to combat drugs, gangs, and gun violence. He's also a strong social conservative, strongly opposing abortion, gay rights, and cuts to military spending, while advocating for prayer in schools. Lungren also campaigned for Governor in support of the Paul-Whitman Tax Cut and the Term Limits Amendment, which has struggled to find support in California's state legislature. He also carries the endorsements of both Pat Buchanan and Phil Crane, two influential figures from the pre-Gravel era Reform Party.

Senator Connie Mack III of Florida

https://preview.redd.it/es06isx8htfh1.png?width=612&format=png&auto=webp&s=023906c884f6e62a80cecaffb0134fc11dba619c

Connie Mack III has served as Florida's junior United States Senator since 1989. Before that, he served three terms in the House. While he isn't the most well-known politician in the 1996 Republican Presidential field, he has built quite the impressive legislative resume. Mack co-sponsored both the Paul-Whitman Tax Cut and the Tenant Ownership and Housing Empowerment Act. He also co-wrote, along with Democratic Senator Skip Humphrey of Minnesota, a bill that modernized the Medicare system for the 21st century.

Ideologically, Mack is seen as a moderate. He supports free trade and tax cuts, but he is also committed to preserving the social safety net. For his entire tenure in the Senate, he's reached across the aisle to ensure that Social Security and Medicare receive adequate funding. He's also one of the Republican Party's leading defenders of abortion rights, a position which his more socially conservative primary opponents have frequently criticized him for. Mack is seen by party insiders as an underrated candidate, one who's broadly electable enough to emerge as a compromise option if none of the three front runners quickly consolidate support.

Former Senator Pat Robertson of South Carolina

https://preview.redd.it/4xdp25vldtfh1.png?width=1500&format=png&auto=webp&s=93a6decbe19f8195727a1c50b95ab53736a9ff01

Pat Robertson is an evangelical minister who served in the United States Senate representing South Carolina from 1987 to 1995. He ran for President once before, in 1988, but he was unsuccessful, failing to win the nomination of the Republican Party or the Reform Party. This time, Robertson should go much farther, as he resigned from the Senate in order to focus exclusively on his Presidential campaign.

His platform is similar to the one he used in 1988. It centers his Christian values, including opposition to abortion and gay rights and support for religious instruction in public schools and tough-on-crime policies to combat rising rates of urban violence. On economic issues, Robertson is a conventional conservative who supports free trade and the Paul-Whitman Tax Cut. He's also called for a balanced budget, although he supports strong social programs and protecting social security and Medicare at all costs. Robertson is also a supporter of a strong national defense, and a staunch advocate for Israeli issues. As such, he has promised to end the arms embargo against Israel which has stood since 1985. He's also quite progressive on a few issues. As a Senator, he's consistently voted for environmentalist legislation. He was also a major proponent of decriminalizing drug possession in the United States and has promised to pardon all Americans convicted of drug crimes who've successfully completed rehabilitation programs.

Governor of Ohio George Voinovich

https://preview.redd.it/djf2z14hbtfh1.png?width=660&format=png&auto=webp&s=d9c6f3ed214e5b482d19e04302849a7e377738ad

George Voinovich has been around in Ohio politics for decades, but he didn't step into the national spotlight until 1990, when, amidst a nationwide Red Wave, he was elected Governor of Ohio, defeating popular incumbent Paul Leonard. As Governor, Voinovich helped grow the state's economy, especially in the finance, technology, and tourism sectors. He's also kept a balanced budget and enacted major welfare reform. Although he did inherit a pretty good situation from his predecessors, Leonard and Richard Celeste, he's still got plenty of achievements to campaign on for his presidential bid.

Ideologically, Voinovich is a typical Keystone Republican: he's pro-union, he supports a strong social safety net, he is wary of free trade, and he opposes the Paul-Whitman Tax Cut. He's also a vocal opponent of abortion rights. Voinovich is also a leading Republican environmentalist, signing into law Ohio's Environmental Bill of Rights, a bill that has been a model for proactive climate legislation across the country. Voinovich exists primarily as a spoiler to Tom Ridge, siphoning off voters who are within Ridge's base but who want a candidate with stronger pro-life credentials. Ridge needs to get Voinovich out of this race as soon as possible if he wants to win the nomination.

Now that you've read about the candidates, you can vote for your favorites HERE.

President Dick Van Dyke's term is over, and the White House is once again up for grabs. While Van Dyke is one of the most popular outgoing Presidents in a long time, the Democratic Party as a whole is deeply unpopular after decades in power. Worse, there's no clear consensus on which direction the party should go after Dick Van Dyke. The main are of disagreement is on economic policies. Economic moderates want to continue Dick Van Dyke's policies of free-trade and business-friendly regulation, while economic progressives want to see a greater focus on the interests of the working class. In 1996, the field of Democratic candidates vying for the Presidential nomination is bigger than any primary field we've seen in generations. With 20 recognizable candidates, there's a perfect candidate for everyone. The question is, who can consolidate support the fastest? And, more importantly, what does that mean for the future of the party?

The first five Democrats are the front-runners in this race. Most are a little bit more progressive than Dick Van Dyke, especially when it comes to economic policy. All are also very prominent national political figures who should have no trouble with name recognition during this campaign. Out of the twenty-something recognizable Democratic candidates, odds are, the 1996 presidential nominee will be one of these five.

Vice President Richard Celeste

https://preview.redd.it/h3b285z0l2fh1.png?width=198&format=png&auto=webp&s=700cc6ec96d67e87c58bdafd5a411688c3821cbc

Richard Celeste first entered the national political scene in 1978, when he nearly upset Ohio's incumbent Governor, Jim Rhodes, in his third re-election bid. In 1982, after Rhodes became term-limited, Celeste was elected Governor. He was re-elected, defeating Rhodes, in 1986. His time as Ohio's Governor coincided with an economic downturn in the state, yet he still found a way to expand public services and keep the state financially solvent, in doing so, transitioning Ohio from a safe red state to a safe blue one. In 1988, he was nearly chosen as Dick Van Dyke's running mate, but Van Dyke chose to re-nominate Jesse Jackson instead. Thus, Celeste settled for the role of Secretary of Education, where he led the successful implementation of Dick Van Dyke's universal pre-K program. Then, in 1994, after Jesse Jackson's resignation, he finally got his long-awaited promotion to the Vice Presidency.

Celeste is strongly pro-labor, part of what helped him win by large margins in Ohio in 1982 and 1986. Although he supports some of Dick Van Dyke's economic agenda, he's also supported protectionism in a limited capacity and stronger rights for labor unions. He's a committed non-interventionist who wants to use America's foreign policy prowess to solve conflicts overseas through diplomacy. He's also a social progressive who supports abortion, gay rights, and a strong social safety net. There's only one problem with Celeste's candidacy: he's boring. Compared to the other front-runners in this race, the timid, non-confrontational Celeste struggles to stand out. He's got plenty of governing experience in both domestic and foreign policy, but it could be tough for him to win the nomination in a field full of big personalities.

Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa

https://preview.redd.it/oqxgvxk7l2fh1.png?width=1500&format=png&auto=webp&s=29450a34f48ffbe54d0585e69db0d61f2698e19c

Tom Harkin has represented Iowa in the U.S. Senate since 1981. Before he was elected to the Senate, he served in the House. Since the beginning of his Congressional career, Harkin has been a leader of the Democratic Party's progressive wing. He also made a name for himself as one of Congress's leading defenders of the Gravel Administration, supporting Mike Gravel through shame and scandal during his presidency, endorsing his failed 1988 re-election bid, and campaigning in support of Gravel and against Dick Van Dyke in the 1988 primaries. Harkin strongly considered challenging Dick Van Dyke in the 1992 Democratic primaries, but abandoned a bid after it became clear that the DNC would not financially support him. He then endorsed Gravel for re-election.

Harkin is a vocal economic populist, campaigning for President in 1996 on a platform of labor rights, protectionism, and raising the minimum wage. He's also assumed strong progressive stances on social issues, supporting abortion, gay rights, and a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants. On paper, he's the dream candidate for progressives. However, he's come under fire for how long he stood in defense of Mike Gravel. As time goes on, Gravel is becoming more and more associated with the right wing of the political spectrum. Harkin has denounced his past support for the Gravel Movement, but the fact that he waited until 1995 - right after Gravel joined the Reform Party - to do so, concerns some progressives who are worried about being burned again. Gravel's failure as a President set the stage for the resurgence of the Democratic establishment under Dick Van Dyke. Progressives want to regain control of the Democratic Party for good in 1996, and if they want to do that, they need to choose their candidate carefully.

Former Vice President Jesse Jackson

https://preview.redd.it/6lkzuuhdl2fh1.png?width=1152&format=png&auto=webp&s=26aa6e953fc9a8926872ee46b7aa93371613d3ee

Before his career in national politics began, Jesse Jackson was a Civil Rights activist and a protege of Martin Luther King Jr. At the behest of his close friend, Mayor of Chicago Harold Washington, Jackson ran in a special election to represent Illinois's First Congressional District in the House, and won. During his short tenure as a Representative between 1983 and 1985, he made a name for himself by drawing up impeachment articles against President Jack Kemp for his unauthorized invasion of Grenada. He was a longshot candidate for President in 1984, and, although his campaign was short, he did catch the eye of Mike Gravel, the man who eventually won the Democratic nomination and the Presidency that year. Gravel would appoint Jackson as Secretary of State, where he would play an instrumental role in the diplomatic negotiations that ended the Cold War. Later, when Vice President Cliff Finch died in office in 1986, Jackson was elevated to the Vice Presidency to replace him, in doing so becoming America's first black Vice President. In 1988, when actor Dick Van Dyke defeated Gravel for the Democratic presidential nomination, he chose to keep Jackson as his running mate. In total, Jesse Jackson would serve all or part of three terms as Vice President between 1986 and 1994 after the controversial Supreme Court decision in Preate v. Jackson ruled that term limits established under the 22nd amendment did not apply to that office. He then returned to his old role as Secretary of State.

Jesse Jackson is one of the most qualified candidates in the crowded 1996 Democratic Presidential field. He is a foreign policy genius, who, alongside Gravel, helped bring an end to hostilities between the United States and the Soviet Union. He was also the figurehead behind Dick Van Dyke's impressive push for equality for the LGBT community in America. He campaigns as a fiscal and social progressive, arguing for the stronger use of the federal government's nationalization powers outlined in First Republic v. Gravel, the creation of a state-owned-and-run financial institution that could invest in America's struggling rural and inner city communities, and universal protections for LGBT Americans, including gay marriage and adoption rights.

However, Jesse Jackson hasn't always been quite so progressive. He opposed abortion rights during his 1984 Presidential campaign, but now runs as pro-choice. He has been caught on record using ethnic slurs against the Jewish community in the past, but has since denounced those comments. He has yet to denounce his decades-long connection to Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the Nation of Islam known for racist, homophobic, and antisemitic comments. Worse, opposition research from a rival candidate, later confirmed to be Ann Richards, revealed that Jackson was registered to vote as a Republican between 1977 and 1979, corresponding with the first two years of Jack Kemp's presidency. While he claims that he has changed considerably as a person since his last presidential run, he may have a hard time winning over some progressives who are concerned about his controversial past.

Governor Ann Richards of Texas

https://preview.redd.it/h0lkl9ugl2fh1.png?width=1348&format=png&auto=webp&s=28af719250491ad4eeaaa5d5cd1383c86b03838e

Ann Richards got her start in politics when her mentor, Senator Ralph Yarborough, was elected Vice President alongside Robert F. Kennedy in 1968. By the tail end of the Robert F. Kennedy administration, she was serving as White House Press Secretary, helping to paint the embattled President in a positive light amidst the Chappaquiddick Scandal. After Kennedy left office in 1977, she briefly pursued a career in acting, before returning home to Texas in the 1980s, winning the office of Treasurer in 1982 and Governor in 1990. As Governor of Texas, she reformed the state's education and criminal justice systems. Her presidential campaign platform is equally ambitious, with proposals including raising the pay of every teacher and police officer in America, improving the equitability of the criminal justice system across racial and socioeconomic lines, reforming the prison system to focus on rehabilitation of criminals, and, most controversially, adding two more justices to the Supreme Court. Richards is a fiery populist who rejects the neoliberal economic policies of Dick Van Dyke and instead argues for strong protections for American labor. She's also a talented campaigner who's good at connecting with working-class people who wouldn't usually vote for a progressive. She's won the highest office in Texas, twice, while supporting abortion and gay rights.

After surviving an assassination attempt in 1995, Richards is one of the most beloved and most well-known Governors in America. She's used that to her advantage, painting herself as the inevitable Democratic nominee. However, she's not without fault, as her age (63) and health are strongly concerning, as is her past history of substance abuse. In addition, she's been accused of using her power as Governor of Texas to illegally investigate political opponents, including Congressman Tom DeLay and inter-party rival Jim Mattox. She may be the strongest retail politician in the Democratic Presidential primary field, but with such stiff competition, the battle for the nomination will be far from easy.

Senator Kathleen Sullivan Alioto of Massachusetts

https://preview.redd.it/ih4re6nll2fh1.png?width=612&format=png&auto=webp&s=179f81ea5092bff1c96483beba728d0c60e88e30

Kathleen Sullivan Alioto has had an interesting political journey over the past two decades. In 1977, she was a teacher and a member of the Boston School Committee. That same year, a People's Party-aligned progressive faction usurped control of the Massachusetts Democratic Party from a group of Robert F. Kennedy-aligned establishment Democrats. Needing a progressive Senatorial nominee, they chose Alioto Sullivan, who unexpectedly defeated a longtime Republican incumbent. Six years later, she was running for President, beginning as the most progressive candidate in the field. However, as the Gravel Movement gained steam and most of the top establishment Democrats dropped out of the race, she soon found herself as the last candidate standing who could deny Mike Gravel the Democratic nomination. So, she pivoted to the center to try and win over moderates, a move panned as one of the worst political decisions in recent memory, as few moderates were ever going to vote for a young, female progressive from Massachusetts in a Democratic primary. Her campaign did have lasting effects, as Gravel, and later Dick Van Dyke, co-opted her plan for universal pre-kindergarten. Because of this, she's considered the mother of universal pre-K in the United States.

Despite having plenty of support for another Presidential run in 1988, she declined to challenge Gravel a second time, instead endorsing and campaigning for Dick Van Dyke. She was offered the role of Dick Van Dyke's running mate, but turned that down as well. Over the last twelve years, her political positions have become a lot more establishment. Of the five front-runners, she's the only one who supported the North American Free Trade Agreement, and, if elected, she plans to continue Dick Van Dyke's neoliberal economic policies. She's still just as progressive as always on social issues, supporting a strong social safety net and a constitutional amendment to permit gay marriage and adoption rights for LGBTQ+ couples nationwide. However, that hasn't stopped progressives from harshly criticizing her. She has been called out repeatedly for her wealth and willingness to accept large campaign donations from corporations and special interest groups by her more progressive adversaries. Being a multi-millionaire heiress running in a field full of labor populists isn't going to be easy for her in 1996.

The next group of Democrats includes five moderates who largely support the same policies as Dick Van Dyke. If there was one or two of them, they'd be top tier candidates. However, with five prominent Democrats in the race, all of whose platforms overlap significantly, it is possible that they all split the same voter pool and push each other out of the race.

Former Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey

https://preview.redd.it/45rnsw7ul2fh1.png?width=1017&format=png&auto=webp&s=20652b498a46050cdc4af15d603f4142c1f231ce

Bill Bradley is about as big of a Dick Van Dyke loyalist as you can find in the Democratic Party today. Bradley was the chief author of the administration's 1989 budget, one which raised taxes for the first time since the 1970s. His vocal support for tax increases contributed greatly to him losing his bid for re-election in 1990 to anti-tax crusader Christine Todd Whitman. Nevertheless, he remained a Van Dyke ally. After leaving the Senate, Bradley was Dick Van Dyke's closest advisor on fiscal policy. He's steadfastly defended the administration's support of free trade, pro-business and pro-investment policies. As President, he's promised to continue the Dick Van Dyke administration's economic policies while complimenting them with a major re-investment in social services to help address the growing issue of inequality in the country. Bradley is jockeying for Dick Van Dyke's endorsement, and may very well get it too. However, with this many moderates in the race, that's far from a guarantee.

Former Governor Mario Cuomo of New York

https://preview.redd.it/ezeq03h0m2fh1.png?width=458&format=png&auto=webp&s=d0cac7f25656d3fa1a14d469d49c2aa75253aebf

Mario Cuomo served as Governor of New York from 1983 to 1995. As Governor of one of the nation's largest states, Cuomo balanced the state's budget and led New York's economic recovery following the late 1980s recession. He also pushed through quite a bit of progressive social legislation, including laws that protected the rights of LGBTQ+ state employees and transferred ownership of public housing in New York City to tenant co-operatives. He's campaigning as a fiscally responsible progressive, and has called for some spending cuts to reduce the national deficit. While he's promised to protect social programs, that hasn't stopped a few of his more progressive primary challengers from branding him a fiscal conservative. His support for Dick Van Dyke's economic policies haven't helped either. The majority of the Democratic Party wants to pivot to the left on economic policy after eight years of Dick Van Dyke, so Cuomo could be a tough sell in the 1996 Presidential primaries.

Senator Al Gore of Tennessee

https://preview.redd.it/6w7i0kp3m2fh1.png?width=311&format=png&auto=webp&s=3291e6b8dee5cdfce523c2001d01875783b79013

Al Gore, who's represented Tennessee as a Senator since 1985, has a clear niche in this race. While trade and labor are the two biggest issues in the 1996 Democratic Presidential race, Gore has focused heavily on environmental issues. He knows that his bland, moderate persona is not going to excite progressives and elevate him into the top tier of Democratic presidential candidates. As a result, he's heavily pushed the issue that helps him stand out the most: his advocacy for stronger action to combat the climate crisis. He's pushed for an ambitious goal: net zero by 2020, and outlined a comprehensive plan for how to get the U.S. to that point. He's also focused heavily on technological innovation, something he's been a consistent advocate for in the Senate. These two issues could be enough to help Gore rise quickly in this race. However, his tendency to avoid choosing sides on controversial issues could hurt him badly, especially in debates.

Senator Bob Graham of Florida

https://preview.redd.it/wfe7xns6m2fh1.png?width=900&format=png&auto=webp&s=f082eec1d0ae7f4efd5153d9a22af409180b9c56

Bob Graham has been a mainstay of Florida politics for decades. He served two terms as Governor of Florida before successfully running for Senate in 1986. As a talented negotiator of bipartisan compromise, he's been instrumental in helping Dick Van Dyke's agenda pass through the Senate, especially during the four years it's been under Republican control. Graham is a vocal proponent of public education, and promises to open fifty new public universities across the country if elected president. It's exactly the kind of ambitious but broadly-acceptable policy centerpiece you'd expect from a Senator who frequently reaches across the aisle. On economic issues, he's another pro-investment centrist. Graham's got a strong resume and a compelling platform, but is he a compelling enough candidate to escape from moderate purgatory?

Governor Bill Nelson of Florida

https://preview.redd.it/9nt80gacm2fh1.png?width=233&format=png&auto=webp&s=65d743b73887985f74243c640b7a35059d317b06

Bill Nelson is in the middle of his second term as Governor of Florida. Before being elected Governor, he served six terms in the House of Representatives. As a Representative, he helped resurrect NASA's human spaceflight program after it was shut down by the Gravel Administration after the Challenger disaster. While Nelson campaigns as a centrist who will continue Dick Van Dyke's economic policies and stay moderate on social issues, his record as Governor of Florida tells a different story. As Governor, he's protected millions of acres of land in the Everglades from development and pushed through progressive social policies, including protections for LGBTQ+ public employees in a conservative-leaning state. He's the candidate who best carries on the optimistic view of the country held by Dick Van Dyke.

The next group of Democrats aren't as well-known as the top half of this field. They're a bunch of guys hoping to increase their political presence on a national level and maybe compete for a VP nomination. It is unlikely that any of these candidates become the nominee, but crazier things have happened before.

Former Governor Bruce Babbitt of Arizona

https://preview.redd.it/u46qa6hqm2fh1.png?width=400&format=png&auto=webp&s=010b77b5b103a99b0b37aeae0e7a386c855f3e62

Bruce Babbitt has had a long, winding career in national politics. He started out as a District Attorney in the Robert F. Kennedy Justice Dep.artment, before returning home to Arizona and serving two terms as Governor there. He ran for Senate in 1986 and lost, and then returned to the cabinet as Director of the Environmental Protection Agency under Dick Van Dyke. He's running on a platform that clearly stands out from his Democratic rivals. He supports the Paul-Whitman Tax Cuts, earning him praise from the growing faction of pro-business Democrats. He's also proposed major criminal justice system reform and using an aggressive approach to combatting the climate crisis, earning him praise from progressive activists. The problem: few Democratic voters want the exact combination of policy positions he's running on. Progressives hate his stance on fiscal policy and moderates have plenty of other candidates to choose from who will continue Dick Van Dyke's economic policies.

Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut

https://preview.redd.it/e0t3d5lvm2fh1.png?width=250&format=png&auto=webp&s=0eb3eb678ffb95f5b43b59b9d1d4a0c94f2c0235

Chris Dodd ran for president to raise his national profile. That wasn't a great idea. Dodd was one of the first recognizable Democrats to declare their candidacy for the 1996 Presidential nomination, and at first, had decent polling numbers. Then the scandals rolled in. Improper campaign donations, a record of flip-flopping on social issues, and an old sexual assault allegation that was settled out of court in 1985 bogged down his campaign. It also doesn't help that his platform is uninspiring. Dodd contributed greatly to Dick Van Dyke's budget proposals during his time in the Senate, and campaigns on keeping the economy strong by continuing Dick Van Dyke's pro-business, pro-trade economic policies. That isn't an exciting position within the Democratic Party right now, and, combined with his past baggage, could mean he won't be in this race for long. 

Senator Skip Humphrey of Minnesota

https://preview.redd.it/f1mxnmjzm2fh1.png?width=250&format=png&auto=webp&s=fa96a25fe5df1f12e8924d415a1ca5f522b4ef04

Skip Humphrey has represented Minnesota in the Senate since 1991. Compared to Minnesota's other senator, the nationally-recognizable Paul Wellstone, Humphrey has had a relatively quiet tenure in Congress, being a reliable ally of Dick Van Dyke while also supporting the Senate's progressive bloc on some issues. He campaigns for president slightly to the left of Dick Van Dyke, supporting most of his economic agenda, but arguing for stronger protections for American labor. He's seen as a good bridge candidate who could unite moderates and progressives, something the Democratic Party badly needs in a nominee, but outside of his famous family name, he isn't very well-known, and is unlikely to become a top-tier candidate. He would, however, be a great vice presidential selection.

Senator Douglas Wilder of Virginia

https://preview.redd.it/ofxxj4z3n2fh1.png?width=859&format=png&auto=webp&s=6f767710276df34b3b49c9584ddbb49e1674a1dc

Douglas Wilder has a fascinating story. He's represented Virginia in the Senate since 1989, and is the first African-American Senator to represent a Southern state since Reconstruction. In the Senate, he's compiled a liberal-to-progressive voting record and has been a reliable supporter of President Dick Van Dyke. However, with Jesse Jackson also running in this race, he has pivoted ideologically for his presidential campaign, instead trying to sell himself as a moderate who supports Dick Van Dyke's economic agenda and who will be cautious on social issues. That could appeal to moderates and older African-American voters in the South. He's positioned best as a coalition-builder, whose endorsement could carry a more well-known candidate to the nomination. Moderate Democrats running with African-American running mates have been successful in the past, so he's also generating a lot of vice presidential hype.

Former Senator Tim Wirth of Colorado

https://preview.redd.it/6razgtk8n2fh1.png?width=407&format=png&auto=webp&s=9eaf9278cc5abe523ecc3c7f6722129023a6e07f

Among this group of five candidates, Tim Wirth might be the most compelling. He served one term in the Senate from 1985 to 1991, retiring after the tragic death of his close friend John Heinz in a plane crash. As a Senator, Wirth was a leader on foreign policy and climate advocacy. After retiring from the Senate, he served as the U.S. Ambassador to Japan, giving him even more foreign policy credibility. He's campaigning on an innovative platform centering a more aggressive approach to combatting climate change and the implementation of a "cap and trade" system to cut industrial carbon emissions. However, he's been out of the political spotlight for a while. If he can manage to build momentum early on in this race, he could become a serious candidate. If he can't, he'd be a great vice presidential selection too.

The last group of Democratic candidates are the spoiler candidates. They're recognizable enough to get media attention, but aren't really going to seriously contend for the nomination. They exist in this race for one reason: to cause chaos.

Former Representative Douglas Applegate of Ohio

https://preview.redd.it/hi7dbqxcn2fh1.png?width=293&format=png&auto=webp&s=ddd29d8898ba5b4a944be7752380a301696c09e4

Doug Applegate is a relic of a bygone era. He's old as dirt, wears an outdated suit and too much hair dye, and is reliably socially conservative. He's pro-life, anti-gay rights, and tough on crime, and wants to greatly increase defense funding. He's also a vocal opponent of NAFTA and touts the endorsement of the AFL-CIO. He's your typical old-fashioned conservative union Democrat. Sadly, that's a voter bloc that has fled en masse to Reform. If Applegate struggles in early primary contests, it is rumored that he may defect to Reform himself as well.

Representative Chet Edwards of Texas

https://preview.redd.it/3to9qkdgn2fh1.png?width=200&format=png&auto=webp&s=f9096dfa3b293a9c8595ded1e34e157f07bd7fcb

Chet Edwards, a Texas Congressman who's one of the most conservative Democrats in the House, understands he's not going to win the presidential nomination. Rather, he's running as a protest candidate geared towards conservative Democratic voters in the South. He's isn't even on the ballot in some progressive-leaning states, i.e. Hawaii and Vermont. While he doesn't expect to win, he does hope to influence the nomination. He'd prefer a social moderate - someone in the mold of Al Gore or Bob Graham - becomes the nominee, rather than a liberal or a progressive. We'll see how successful his endeavor is.

Former Director of Drug Control Policy Kathleen Kennedy Townsend

https://preview.redd.it/t0zkp45jn2fh1.png?width=180&format=png&auto=webp&s=d588abf36777c45ff5de02a1d816db35a5ad4016

Kathleen Kennedy Townsend is one of the most enigmatic candidates in the 1996 Presidential field. She has genuine government experience - she served in a number of cabinet roles during Dick Van Dyke's eight years as President - but she has never been successfully elected to political office, despite several earnest attempts. Her main appeal in this race is the Kennedy name. Her father, former President Robert F. Kennedy, has been a recluse for the last fifteen years. However, after his daughter announced her candidacy for the presidency, he's made a few appearances at her campaign events. Whenever Robert F. Kennedy shows up, she surges in the polls before fading into lower-tier candidate obscurity as soon as his appearance fades from memory. Outside of Robert F. Kennedy's appearances, her campaign has been largely unmemorable, as she's running as a conventional, pro-business liberal. She's a great cabinet official, but unlikely to win the nomination for President.

Former Secretary of Defense Bob Kerrey

https://preview.redd.it/iq8h0fcqn2fh1.png?width=436&format=png&auto=webp&s=8e762520e353a5822ee8bb5dbb00991ca054222c

Bob Kerrey is a candidate that would be polling a lot higher if he wasn't so controversial. In 1982, he was seen as one of the faces of the future in the Democratic Party after nearly upsetting incumbent Senator Edward Zorinsky in 1982, a bad year for Democrats nationwide. He was one of the largest financial supporters of the Gravel campaign in 1984, and parlayed his support into the role of Secretary of Defense during the Gravel administration. As SecDef, Kerrey oversaw the closure of dozens of military installations. As a result, he's deeply unpopular among veterans groups. After leaving the Gravel cabinet in 1988, he moved to Los Angeles, earning a small fortune as a venture capitalist and movie producer. Yet, he still claims Nebraska as his home state, a move that's drawn the ire of his primary opponents. He polls well with the small group of Gravel loyalist voters who remain in the Democratic Party, but, since he's struggled to expand his base beyond Gravel supporters, he isn't doing to well in early polling. 

Businessman Paul Pelosi of California

https://preview.redd.it/wemkq74un2fh1.png?width=600&format=png&auto=webp&s=6d9d16d2f6954033a26cd065898dfcea22af6f25

Paul Pelosi is a real estate investor, professional sports team owner, and venture capitalist from San Francisco. His wife, Nancy, ran for Congress once in the 1980s before retiring from politics. He's a wealthy political outsider who's running a self-funded campaign with a conventional liberal platform. He supports higher taxes for the wealthy and corporations and is strongly in support of gun control. However, his platform overlaps significantly with other, better known candidates, and he's come under scrutiny for a past DUI arrest. These factors mean his odds of claiming the nomination are slim.

Wow, that's a lot of candidates. Now that you've read all about them, you can vote for your favorites HERE.

https://preview.redd.it/ucfk0zil3heh1.png?width=679&format=png&auto=webp&s=ac5bb4df48cde276d6701cde731e46e9fceb3e0f

The 1994 midterms returned control of the Senate to the Republicans after two years of a Democratic trifecta. On paper, it appeared as though Dick Van Dyke might struggle to pass what remained of his agenda entering the last two years of his presidency. Instead, he used his gift for finding bipartisan compromise to push through a budget that protected social programs, created a pilot program for tenant ownership of public housing, expanded the federal government's ability to prosecute domestic terrorists, and got Puerto Rico admitted as the nation's 51st state.

Van Dyke's Cabinet

After Jesse Jackson resigned to run for President, George McGovern, one of Dick Van Dyke's political mentors, stepped in as Secretary of State.

Vice President: Richard Celeste

Secretary of State: Jesse Jackson (1995), George McGovern (1995-96)

Secretary of the Treasury: Robert Rubin

Secretary of Defense: Les Aspin

Attorney General: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Secretary of the Interior: Tom Udall (1995-96), Norma Paulus (1996)

Secretary of Agriculture: Jo Ann Zimmerman

Secretary of Commerce: James Blanchard

Secretary of Labor: Lane Kirkland

Secretary of Health and Human Services: Jim McDermott

Secretary of Housing and Urban Development: George McDonald

Secretary of Transportation: Norman Mineta

Secretary of Energy: John Rowe

Secretary of Education: Roy Romer

Director of National Security: Leon Panetta

Secretary of Veterans Affairs: Max Cleland

Director of the Office of Budget and Management: Alice Rivlin

United States Trade Representative: Mike Hatch

Ambassador to the United Nations: John Lewis

Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors: Laura Tyson

Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency: Bruce Babbitt

Administrator of the Small Business Administration: Bill Gradison

Director of the Federal Emergency Management Administration: Art Agnos

Director of National Drug Control Policy: Kathleen Kennedy Townsend (1995), Joe Kennedy II (1995-96)

Term Limits and Tax Cuts

Congressman Asa Hutchinson (R-AR), who introduced the Term Limits Amendment in the House.

After Republicans regained control of the Senate and made significant gains in the House during the 1994 midterms, both houses of Congress pushed hard to pass the Term Limits Amendment, establishing term limits for all federal offices, including the Vice President, members of Congress, cabinet officials, and Supreme Court Justices. Most Republicans supported the amendment enthusiastically, campaigning on it extensively as part of their "change" agenda ahead of the 1994 midterms. The Congressional delegations of Reform and the Green Party were also in near-unanimous support. However, Democrats were divided. Most of the Congressional Progressive Caucus came out in support, as did some Labor Populists, including Speaker of the House David Bonior, but much of the rest of the Democratic leadership, as well as senior members of both major parties' delegations opposed, arguing that government functions better when the people with the most expertise are allowed to serve in their roles. Senior Democrats also argued that Republicans pushed this amendment simply because the Democratic delegation has more long-serving incumbents. Republicans argued that, after the verdict in Preate v. Jackson, something had to be done to prevent politicians from being lifetime officeholders. Although many of the closest allies to President Dick Van Dyke opposed the amendment, he reluctantly endorsed the amendment due to its high national popularity. He argued that Washington needed institutional reform in order to restore confidence in government and that the Term Limits Amendment provided a reasonable compromise between stability and government accountability. After months of spirited debate, the amendment passed both houses of Congress with slim two-thirds majorities in mid-1995.

That was the easy part.

Mississippi State Senator John Grisham led a coordinated effort across the South to stop the Term Limits Amendment from becoming law.

The real battle for the Term Limits Amendment is likely to be state-level ratification. Although some state legislatures eagerly approved the amendment soon after it passed through Congress, including Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Vermont, others, especially in the Deep South, are fiercely resisting. Across the country, State Legislatures are the last bastions of control for the Gravel Movement, a coalition of conservative and populist Democrats and Reformers. Gravel-aligned members of Congress are slowly disappearing amidst a gradual resurgence of the Republican Party in the South and Midwest. Should the Term Limits Amendment pass, Gravel Democrats would almost certainly be wiped off the map entirely. Democratic-led State Legislatures in conservative-leaning states are in almost unanimous opposition to the amendment, with John Grisham, the Majority Leader of the Mississippi State Senate, leading the charge. Under Grisham's Project Pelican, the populist Democratic establishment across the South has coordinated to hold up their states' approval processes, with the goal of killing the Term Limits Amendment entirely.

Senate Majority Leader Ted Stevens presided over the first government shutdown since the 1970s amidst a greater argument over tax reform.

The Republicans other major policy priority, the Paul-Whitman Tax Cut, fared far worse. Named for it's originators, Senators Ron Paul and Christine Todd Whitman, the proposal would significantly reduce income and capital gains tax rates, shifting tax burden to two new sources of federal income, a national sales tax and a wealth tax on individuals with a net worth over $10,000,000. The proposal attracted a wide ideological range of supporters, including Libertarian-leaning conservatives arguing that high income tax rates infringed on the rights of taxpayers and moderates who argued that slashing corporate tax rates would usher in a new era of major investment. The wealth tax, included to encourage moderate Democrats to vote for the tax bill, instead received high praise from Progressives who opposed the bill as a whole. A few moderate Democrats, namely Sam Nunn and Bennett Johnston, signed on to the bill, but for the most part, Democratic resistance to sweeping tax cuts was united. The Republicans, in their eyes, were doing too much, too quickly.

Unable to pass their preferred budget proposal, Senate Republicans torpedoed a Democratic-supported budget written by the House, which proposed a modest tax increase. As a result, the Government shut down for the first time since 1977. Although the shutdown was brief, as a national tragedy forced the Senate to quickly pass a continuing resolution and re-open the government, it still constituted the most contentious budget battle since the Kemp era. As the continuing resolution was set to expire, the Senate believed they had found a bipartisan compromise, freezing tax rates in place and moving spending numbers around to fund the budget priorities of the Dick Van Dyke administration.

And then everything unraveled.

Three Republican Senators, including Ron Paul, torpedoed a bipartisan budget compromise, shutting down the government a second time.

Three Libertarian-leaning Republican Senators, Dirk Kempthorne, Ron Paul, and Denny Rehberg, refused to support the agreement - or any agreement that did not cut taxes, for that matter - and the Government shut down once again. The timing proved especially unfortunate, as the agreement collapsed almost immediately after Dick Van Dyke wrapped up the July 4th Washington Telethon, extending the infamous "Telethon Curse" another year. By late summer, the Senate, exhausted from months of debate, finally agreed on a compromise, keeping taxes steady while also creating additional safeguards for public program funding. That was enough to flip Kathleen Sullivan Alioto and a handful of other liberal Democrats from no votes to yeas. Comprehensive tax reform will have to wait another election cycle.

Terror in Texas

The Texas Governor's Mansion burns after a van carrying an explosive device crashed into the building early in the morning on April 19th, 1995.

So, what cataclysmic event forced the Senate's hand and convinced them to rush through a continuing resolution? Well, on the morning of April 19th, 1995, a delivery van carrying an explosive device crashed into the Texas Governor's Mansion, blowing it to smithereens. The bomber was Timothy McVeigh, a 26 year old U.S. Army veteran who'd recently returned from Eastern Europe, assisted by longtime associate Terry Nichols. Department of National Security investigators obtained evidence that McVeigh had initially targeted the Alfred P. Murrah Federal building in Oklahoma City, but changed targets last-minute due to the government shutdown, settling on an attempt to assassinate Governor of Texas Ann Richards, whom he considered to be a figurehead of the evils of big government. However, Richards was out of the state when the bombing occurred, as she had been secretly receiving experimental treatments for her osteoporosis in Boston, Massachusetts. Sixteen staff members at the Texas Governor's Mansion were killed, and the historic building was nearly completely destroyed, but the country narrowly avoided the most high-profile political assassination in America in nearly fifteen years.

The Senate rushed to re-open the government so they could pass the Domestic Security Act, dramatically expanding the power of the DNS to investigate suspected domestic terrorists. The bill passed with overwhelming bipartisan margins, although one Texas Senator, Ron Paul, was a vocal opponent who feared that expanded DNS powers could be used by the President to unlawfully surveil political opponents. Perhaps the bill's most important feature was establishing a dedicated counter-terrorism unit within the DNS, whose sole focus would be preventing another terrorist incident such as the ones which had occurred in Austin, New York City, and Valmeyer. Thus, in one fell swoop, the dismantling of the federal government's surveillance powers by the Gravel Administration has been almost completely reversed.

Campbell v. Bessent

Former Governor of South Carolina and 1996 Republican Presidential hopeful Carroll Campbell.

In 1993, Dick Van Dyke signed into law an ordinance protecting the rights of openly gay federal government employees. In response, Governor Carroll Campbell of South Carolina signed a law prohibiting openly gay individuals from being employed in public-sector jobs. A handful of state employees known to be gay were terminated, including Scott Bessent, a lawyer and economist employed by the South Carolina Department of the Treasury. Bessent, the scion of the wealthy and politically connected Jenrette family, sued the state, and the case made it's way all the way up to the Supreme Court. Bessent's lawyers argued that his termination was unlawful, violating the Equal Protection Clause of the fourteenth amendment, while Former Governor Carroll Campbell defended the law, calling it a legitimate exercise of state authority over public employment.

In a 6-3 ruling, authored by Associate Justice George J. Mitchell, the court's majority ruled that:

"The Equal Protection Clause does not permit a State to deny citizens equal participation in public life merely because of who they are. Government may not create classes of second-class citizenship without the most compelling constitutional justification."

Conservative Justice Richard Posner joined the five liberal justices to deliver a major Supreme Court victory to gay rights activists.

The court's liberal wing was joined, somewhat surprisingly, in this verdict by Richard Posner, regarded as one of the court's most conservative justices. However, Posner has consistently voted to protect individual liberty and free expression and consistently voted against government restrictions without a clear, compelling justification, even in controversial cases. Perhaps more surprising was the dissent of Mary Elizabeth Hanford, a South Carolina resident. In her dissent, Hanford claimed to oppose South Carolina's law, but would not go so far as to call it unconstitutional. Hanford argued that the fourteenth amendment, which made no mention of sexual orientation, could not be reasonably extended to cover the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals, believing that this is a matter better left up to the states. This ruling is further evidence of Hanford's judicial leanings shifting from the progressive left to the conservative right. Nevertheless, the ruling in Campbell v. Bessent nullified any state and local restrictions on the employment of LGBTQ+ individuals. Within days, every state that had followed South Carolina's lead and prohibited openly gay people from serving in government roles repealed their statutes. The decisions also reaffirmed Dick Van Dyke's signature achievements, the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act, as constitutional doctrine, ensuring that a socially conservative president could not reverse the progress made on gay rights by the Van Dyke administration.

The Reform Congress

While major tax reform efforts stalled out in Congress in mid-1995, less than a year later, in early 1996, Congress would pass two other big items on their agenda: strengthening the War Powers Act and tightening restrictions on illegal immigration.

An American peacekeeping soldier stationed in Yugoslavia, still in the midst of an ongoing Civil War.

First, Congress did something to tighten the restrictions on the unauthorized use of military force contained in the War Powers Act. Since President Robert F. Kennedy signed the War Powers Act in 1973, two of three of the succeeding presidents, Jack Kemp and Dick Van Dyke, have overseen American military excursions overseas not explicitly authorized by Congress. Under the strengthened version of the War Powers Act, Congressional war powers authorizations must be made within 60 days of the beginning of an armed conflict, or else all American troops must be immediately withdrawn. In addition, war powers authorizations would be restricted in scope, to prevent authorizations for one conflict being used to cover uses of military force on another continent. There was minimal opposition to this bill, and it was signed by President Dick Van Dyke soon after it passed the Senate.

A border fence separates San Diego from Tijuana, Mexico. Two San Diego-area Representatives, Peter Navarro and Joe Shea of the Reform Party, led the push for a comprehensive immigration reform bill.

The other bill was far more contentious. An unusual coalition of conservative Republicans, pro-labor Democrats, and Reformites pushed a comprehensive immigration reform bill through Congress, with key provisions being stronger border enforcement, increased penalties for illegal immigration, a reduction in certain kinds of legal immigration, specifically foreign guest laborers, and expanded resources for immigration enforcement. Dick Van Dyke immediately moved to veto the bill, committing to address border security funding, but arguing that the United States is a nation that is strengthened by immigration. Thus, he promised that no bill directly or indirectly aimed at reducing immigration levels would ever be signed into law as long as he was President. Instead, President Van Dyke advocated for a pathway to citizenship, allowing immigrants who entered the country illegally to become full-fledged U.S. citizens. As the bill passed through Congress with a very slim majority, no attempt was made to override the veto.

Ready for Liftoff

Eris, the first of the second-generation space shuttles, launches at the Kennedy Space Center.

In 1986, after the space shuttle Challenger exploded, killing all seven crew members, President Mike Gravel shut down NASA's human spaceflight program. While the program was reinstated less than two years later, the program had to be rebuilt from the ground up following its brief hiatus. The rebuilding effort would culminate on June 20th, 1996, when Eris, the first second-generation space shuttle, launched the first Americans into orbit in nearly a decade. After the shuttle's successful launch, President Dick Van Dyke delivered a speech in Houston praising the thousands of scientists, engineers, and astronauts who spent years rebuilding America's spaceflight capabilities.

The mission was the beginning of an ambitious new era for NASA. Two more second-generation shuttles, Ganymede and Hyperion will be ready to launch before the year 2000. The first crewed Moon landing in nearly 30 years is scheduled for 2001, a joint operation with the Soviet Union. These announcements generated enormous public enthusiasm, as it showed that America had moved past the geopolitically-motivated Cold War era of spaceflight, which died with the Challenger in 1986, to a new era of science, technology, and international cooperation.

Promises Kept

The Cabrini-Green housing development in Chicago, saved from demolition by years of activism and a little bit of help from Dick Van Dyke.

As Dick Van Dyke's presidency came to a close, he managed to fulfill two more of the big promises he made to American voters when he first ascended to the Presidency in 1988.

First, he signed the Housing Empowerment Act, which fundamentally redefined how public housing operates in the United States. HUD was instructed to facilitate voluntary transfers of qualifying developments into the hands of tenant-owned cooperatives, provided financing for tenant management, and assist tenant's union leaders in residential property management. Local housing authorities retained oversight capabilities, but the federal government will now do all it can to empower tenants to own and govern their own communities.

Mayor of Chicago Jesse Jackson Jr. and his wife.

This is a movement that began in Chicago in the late 1980s, when Richard M. Daley was elected mayor with a controversial plan to tear down Chicago's high-rise public housing developments. Rather than let their homes be demolished, tenant organizers led by Marion Stamps argued that residents themselves should be allowed to control the future of their communities. For six long years, they protested, proving to be just enough of a nuisance for Mayor Daley to delay his controversial demolition plan, ever after it was approved by the Federal Government. Then, in the 1995 Mayoral Election, Daley lost his office. In a stunning upset, Jesse Jackson Jr., the son of the former Vice President, defeated Daley as an Green Party-endorsed Independent. Marion Stamps and Barack Obama, won alderman positions. Soon after Jackson was sworn in as Mayor, he dismissed the leadership of the Chicago Housing Authority, stopped the demolition plan, and began experimenting with a tenant ownership program.

With the help of progressive Democrats and a few Libertarian-minded Republicans, Dick Van Dyke was able to eliminate all federal regulations that prevented Chicago's tenant ownership program from coming into effect. Tenant ownership was a policy change that was thrown around several times as early as the 1980s by politicians on both sides of the aisle, but it was the Van Dyke administration that finally made it the law of the land.

Puerto Ricans celebrate admission to the union as the 51st state.

Dick Van Dyke also helped Puerto Rico clear the final hurdle to becoming America's 51st state. Concurrent with the 1994 midterms, Puerto Rico voted, narrowly, in favor of statehood. However, a bill to actually achieve that stalled out in Congress for nearly two years. Democrats pushed the bill constantly, arguing that it was Congress's duty to admit Puerto Rico to the union after it's residents voted for statehood. Republicans countered with claims of election-rigging, arguing that the admission of nominally-competitive Puerto Rico into the union under a Democratic administration would give the Democrats an upper hand in the newly-admitted state during the 1996 Presidential election. And thus, for years, the bill languished in a Republican-controlled Senate.

Desperate to fulfill his promise to the citizens of Puerto Rico before the end of his presidency, Dick Van Dyke sat down with members of both parties and negotiated the Millennium Compromise, an agreement that finally convinced Republicans to move forward on Puerto Rican statehood. Rather than admit Puerto Rico to the union immediately, Democrats and Republicans agreed to grant Puerto Rico statehood beginning on January 1st, 2000. Delayed statehood would give all parties plenty of time to politically organize on the island before it was granted electoral votes and a full Congressional delegation. The bill passed the Senate in late October 1996, and in a symbolic gesture, Dick Van Dyke signed Puerto Rican statehood into law on November 4, 1996, one day before the 1996 Presidential election. Promises made, promises kept.

https://preview.redd.it/2wh9mwao2heh1.png?width=314&format=png&auto=webp&s=d79867ee53e17a45a7aed6b205a58925a480afdd

Dick Van Dyke's presidency has been controversial in some aspects, but he leaves office as one of the most popular Presidents America has seen in decades. Dick Van Dyke's term has been characterized by a few major themes. He's pursued a more centrist economic policy than the Democratic Presidents who recently preceded him, supporting free trade and pro-investment economic policies, with strong guardrails to protect the American consumer. His administration has valued bipartisanship. Although some of his signature achievements: universal pre-K, protections for LGBTQ+ employees, and Puerto Rican statehood, were progressive in nature, he's always tried to reach across the aisle and find areas of compromise so all parties can benefit from major pieces of legislation. He's also fundamentally altered Americans' perception of what a good President should do. He's increased the public visibility of the office through publicity events such as the Washington Telethon while conducting his duties as president with far greater restraint than his predecessors. He's used his veto power sparingly, issued few executive orders, and largely delegated economic and foreign policy to advisors with greater expertise. While his reluctancy to act timely on certain issues, namely the Eastern European Crisis, has been criticized, the combination of an amiable public persona, a penchant for finding compromise between ideologically divided political parties, and sparing use of presidential authority has him leaving office as the most popular outgoing President since Eisenhower.

In 1996, the presidency is wide open. The Republican field is likely to coalesce around a few candidates, most of whom are repeat Presidential candidates. Meanwhile, the Democratic field could have up to twenty recognizable candidates, one of the largest fields of Presidential candidates any party has seen in American history. The Green Party and Reform Party are expected to run serious contenders for the Presidency as well. As Dick Van Dyke is much more popular than the Democrats as a whole, the White House is a true toss-up for the first time in years.