Would Bob Dole have stayed in the Senate longer if he wasn’t nominated for President in 1996?

[darklordoftech]

Upon being nominated, he resigned from the Senate to “focus on his Presidential campaign”. Had he not been nominated for President, would he have stayed in the Senate longer or would he have retired anyway?

[TDAS04]

Probably.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

He would've finished out his term and might have run for reelection a final time in 1998, but if he did, his wife never would've run for North Carolina Senator in 2002 when Helms retired. I don't see him running in 2004, but maybe his wife would've run for his Kansas seat then.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Maybe until the end of his term. Dole realized that his position as the Majority Leader would be hard to keep for long after losing an election to Clinton, so, as one commentator put it, it was time for him to "move up or move out".

Senate leaders usually retire. Only Byrd remained for over 20 years as Senator after ceasing to be the Democratic leader.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Maybe until the end of his term. Dole realized that his position as the Majority Leader would be hard to keep for long after losing an election to Clinton, so, as one commentator put it, it was time for him to "move up or move out".

How does Dole lose an election he wasn't even nominated to run in? That's the whole purpose of this thread, what would Dole have done had he not been nominated.

[darklordoftech]

If Dole stayed Majority Leader, maybe the Star Wars character would be called “Dole Dodd” instead of “Lott Dodd”.

[Lincoln Republican]

Bob Dole was a political animal, whose life revolved around politics.

I do not doubt at all had he not been nominated for President that he would have completed his Senate term, at the very least.

[Sir Mohamed]

Probably would have retired in 1998 and become an elder statesmen.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Clinton would have beaten a more progressive candidate Arlen Specter or Pat Buchanan or George Pataki, Perot was poised to run and split the vote and the economy was too strong, but if Clinton had picked Gephardt as Veep, instead of Gore, then Gephardt could have won the Prez after impeachment in 2000, and if he was Kerry's Veep, he could of overcome the SSM ballot initiative in OH and the Bin Laden tape, due to fact Edwardsville had no solid foreign policy credentials and Kerry would have won .

The problem was Bradley and Gore only primary in 2000 and Gore was a bad candidate, in the aftermath of impeachment. Gore was seen as not independent enough to break from Clinton and seemed by Bush W as weak

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Maybe until the end of his term. Dole realized that his position as the Majority Leader would be hard to keep for long after losing an election to Clinton, so, as one commentator put it, it was time for him to "move up or move out".

How does Dole lose an election he wasn't even nominated to run in? That's the whole purpose of this thread, what would Dole have done had he not been nominated.

That's what I get for not reading the OP.

[NewYorkExpress]

He would have run and won in 1998 and 2004.

2010, if he ran, he would have been vulnerable to a Tea Party Primary challenge.

1998:

Bob Dole (R) 68%
Paul Feleciano Jr (D) 32%

2004:

Bob Dole (R) 60%
Kansas City Mayor Carol Marinovich (D) 39%

2010:

Republican Primary:

Representative Sam Brownback 51%
Incumbent Senator Bob Dole 49%

General Election:

Representative Sam Brownback (R) 55%
Kansas Secretary of Agriculture Josh Svaty (D) 44%