WI: Bush Senior Reelected

[Emanresu11]

What the effects be of a two term Bush administration from (1989-1997)? Who would the Democrats and Repubs nominate in 1996? How would historians view the Bush administration?

[Noravea]

I could see perhaps a successor being a Democrat, probably Clinton again. Bush would be remembered mostly for launching the final blow on the Soviets, beating back Saddam, and helping the U.S. Economy in a huge economic boom.

The way Bush would probably win would be to pick Ross Perot as VP in the 92' election. Although Perot didn't win any states, he won 20 Million votes, roughly 20% of the entire vote. If Perot is chosen as VP, probably most of those votes would go to Bush.


For a 1997 election, I could see Perot running for the Republicans, and maybe Al Gore for the Dems. It would be a close race, probably a Gore victory. Gore would mess up the American economy, and loose to Bush Jr. in 2000, in a very close race. Bush Jr. takes two terms, and unknown from then.

[Emperor Norton I]

Originally Posted by Nickcvader

I could see perhaps a successor being a Democrat, probably Clinton again. Bush would be remembered mostly for launching the final blow on the Soviets, beating back Saddam, and helping the U.S. Economy in a huge economic boom.

Bush would be remembered for little of that besides Hussein. He didn't strike a final blow at the USSR and no one saw him as doing such. In fact, when the Berlin Wall collapsed and the Soviets fell, he gave a response to the matters emotionless enough to make Calvin Coolidge proud. He similarly wouldn't have been remembered fondly economically. The economy tanking into a recession and his rescind on a promise for "No new taxes" is what cost him the election in a big way, never mind that the recession came from Reaganomics of the previous 8 years, nor that the new taxes probably would have done far more to deal with economic matters than keeping onto that mantra would have (whereas a person can be smart, people are stupid. That's a tried and true rule and those two facts show it). He would have the Gulf war, and that'd be mostly it.

The way Bush would probably win would be to pick Ross Perot as VP in the 92' election. Although Perot didn't win any states, he won 20 Million votes, roughly 20% of the entire vote. If Perot is chosen as VP, probably most of those votes would go to Bush.

I don't think I can see Bush giving Perot any VP nod, nor am I sure Perot would have accepted it either.

For a 1997 election, I could see Perot running for the Republicans, and maybe Al Gore for the Dems. It would be a close race, probably a Gore victory. Gore would mess up the American economy, and loose to Bush Jr. in 2000, in a very close race. Bush Jr. takes two terms, and unknown from then.

Firstly, I'm not sure those would be the nominees (Perot for the aforementioned reason). True, it'd take a centrist Democrat like Clinton in 1992 to give the Democrats a chance against Bush as they had in the OTL. But, this'd be 1996. I'd posit Bush's approval would be luke warm at best by this point, and that 16 years of Republicans and one that doesn't have too much pizazz ending that out would dampen the chances for Bush's successor, and if it is Quayle, the GOP is screwed no matter what and the Democrats could run a rubber duck against him and win. I don't see how Gore would screw up the economy if it is him. Similarly, I doubt Bush Jr. will see the same career, let alone the same chance in 2000.

[Derek Jackson]

If Clinton lost in 1992 he would NOT be the Democrat candidate at any later Presidential election.

[DSS]

Originally Posted by Nickcvader

I could see perhaps a successor being a Democrat, probably Clinton again. Bush would be remembered mostly for launching the final blow on the Soviets, beating back Saddam, and helping the U.S. Economy in a huge economic boom.

The way Bush would probably win would be to pick Ross Perot as VP in the 92' election. Although Perot didn't win any states, he won 20 Million votes, roughly 20% of the entire vote. If Perot is chosen as VP, probably most of those votes would go to Bush.


For a 1997 election, I could see Perot running for the Republicans, and maybe Al Gore for the Dems. It would be a close race, probably a Gore victory. Gore would mess up the American economy, and loose to Bush Jr. in 2000, in a very close race. Bush Jr. takes two terms, and unknown from then.

Aye, I think that the way to get Bush re-elected would be to have Ross Perot not just leave the race, but never enter. Most of the votes that went to Perot would have been won by Bush, and that could definitely turn the tide of the election over to the president. Perhaps you can have Perot run for Congress, or Senate, or maybe have him wait two more years to run for governor.... Say, do I see a Perot vs. GWB vs. some Democrat for Texas Governor in '94?

If you don't have Perot leave, I think there are two more ways for Bush to win:

1) Have Bush choose a different running mate; the people didn't entirely like Dan Quayle, and while I don't think Quayle made any votes go to Clinton or Perot that would originally have gone for Bush, I think a different Veep candidate - such as Dick Cheney - that could fire up the crowd could get some votes over to Bush. This may not win Bush the election, but it does improve his chances somewhat.

2) Ironically, have Perot more successful in '92, but not too successful; if you can get Perot to win enough electoral votes to get no candidate to have 270 EVs by the end of the election, it will come down to Congress, and as long as the House doesn't vote on a president-elect before January 3, 1993, the House will re-elect Bush, due to the Republican majority in Congress. Plus, most likely, the Republican vice presidential candidate would also be elected by a vote in the Senate - though again, as long as it is before January 3, 1993. If any of the Congressional votes happen after that date, the Democratic congress will probably vote Bill Clinton into office.