1992 US Elections in Continued Cold War

PoD circa 1985.

Assuming George HW Bush still wins 1988 after eight years of Reagan, how would the 1992 US elections be affected had the Soviet Union survived?
A few scenarios to work with:

SCENARIO 1: Eastern Bloc still collapses in 1989-90, but the USSR survives under reformist leadership. Soviet combat troops still withdraw from Afghanistan in 1989. From 1991 - 1992, the New Union Treaty is adopted by nine of the fifteen SSRs. While Armenia, Georgia, Moldova, and the Baltics secede, Russia, Ukranine, Belarus, and the Central Asian SSRs remain to form the Union of Sovereign Soviet Republics.
This new USSR is a much more liberal, democratic state than it’s predecessor (though it’s far from perfect). US-Soviet relations have improved dramatically from just a few years prior, though there continue to be disagreements over issues such as the wars in Yugoslavia and Soviet arms sales to Iran.

SCENARIO 2: Similar to the above in that the East Bloc collapses in 1989; however, a coup by Soviet hardliners in early 1991 succeeds in taking control of the Union. New leadership is hostile to the United States and NATO. Former East Bloc states heavily lobby for NATO membership.

SCENARIO 3: USSR and Warsaw Pact survive with moderate political and economic reforms. Soviets withdraw from Afghanistan in 1989. Soviets still able to directly threaten Western Europe, but East-West relations are fairly good. Both sides pursue policies of detente, deconfliction, and disarmament, particularly in regard to the Yugoslav wars, the Gulf War, and proxy conflicts across the globe.

SCENARIO 4: USSR and Warsaw Pact survive under hardline leadership. Soviet leadership hostile and confrontational toward NATO. Soviet tanks directly threaten Western Europe. Pro-democracy movements in East Germany and Poland are brutally stamped out. Soviet combat troops remain in Afghanistan. Proxy wars rage across the globe. Failure of INF negotiations in 1987 butterflies START I and CFE, meaning US and USSR still engaged in massive arms buildup and arms race. In 1990, the Soviet Union diplomatically supports the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. In early 1992, the Warsaw Pact invades Yugoslavia after that state disintegrates into civil war. US-Soviet tensions higher than any point since Cuban missile crisis.

I feel like you would probably see a Democratic victory in the case of Scenario 1. Scenario 3 could go either way; Bush might be credited for better relations, but there might also be less of a focus on foreign relations thanks to that. Scenario 2, they might go either way as well, though for different reasons. Scenario 4 I feel would almost assure a Bush victory as the US votes for a strong, experienced leader to stand up to the Soviets.

Might we see an alternate Democratic nominee in any of these scenarios? If so, who?

How would Ross Perot fare in this scenario? What would his Cold War campaign policies be like?
 
Last edited:
Nothing changes. Soviets are a paper tiger by that point and only the most hard core right wing would see them as a major threat. Meanwhile by the election the country was going through a nasty Recession. As Clinton campaign manager said "it's the economy stupid."
 
Nice! It's helpful to have specific scenarios to work against. And I disagree with White Lightning. I know it's hard to believe, but people tend to take nuclear-armed states pretty seriously, no matter how fractured their social systems- actually, ESPECIALLY if they've got fractured social systems.

So that said, Scenario 1 is probably pretty similar to OTL. You might have the Dems score some points by criticizing Bush for not knocking over the king while it was teetering on the board. But the world here seems peaceful enough that I doubt foreign policy makes much more difference than IOTL, and the dynamics are broadly similar.

Scenario 2 seems reeeeeaaally dangerous! The USSR has lost its allies and probably feels cornered. They're almost certainly experiencing unrest in the SSRs. And all the reasons they fell IOTL are still there, so things are probably getting more repressive and Best Korea-like every day. Anything perceived as a move against them could set them off. This kind of threat coupled with a lot of obvious foreign policy victories (no more Eastern Bloc!) is a strong case for an incumbent.

Scenario 3 is an interesting one and reads like how Cold War scholars living through the Cold War used to talk about how the thing would end- everyone just puts down their guns and we act a little bit more rationally. To someone who hadn't experienced OTL's Iron Curtain collapse, this would feel like an out-and-out victory. This is the scenario where the USSR is most likely to keep Hussein from doing anything stupid, which keeps the oil shock from happening, which puts a pin in the recession (lots of things can start a recession, so it could still pop up sometime before the election). Easy cruise for Bush here, most likely.

Scenario 4 is obviously pretty dangerous as well, and we've got at least two very significant flashpoints here in Yugoslavia and Kuwait. I can't imagine Hussein gets away with an invasion of Kuwait. The Arabian nations would form in lockstep behind the Americans at this point. Russia loses Syria as an ally for starters. There's maybe even some rapprochement between Iran and the Arabian states over a mutual hatred of Iraq. Even as Kuwait sits occupied aid starts pouring into Afghanistan. Now the Soviets are about to crack themselves apart anyway. But let's say as of 1992 all that's still building and what the voter sees is a world where a Soviet puppet toppled another sovereign nation and sits on its territory. The situation in Yugoslavia is too vague to comment on. My guess is we end up with some kind of partition between NATO and the WP rather than a full-on confrontation (because there is no election in 1992 if that's the case).

So you've got a world where people are more afraid than ever and very little evidence of Bush being an effective world leader. This is another one where the Dems definitely have a shot. Someone with a bold vision like Biden or maybe someone with really strong credentials on military policy like Sam Nunn. But I think even a moderate diplomat like Clinton has a good chance here.

As for Perot, he's not going to even get off the ground (even if he wanted to run, which I doubt he would) in Scenario 2 or 4. He probably runs and might even come in second in Scenario 3, depending on who the Democrat is and what they seem to stand for. Scenario 1 is the kind of like OTL scenario and we'd have to discuss other alternate events to determine how well he does there.
 

The easiest way, IMHO, is to have Chernenko take a fall or die of one of his myriad health issues shortly before Andropov. The USSR wasn’t ready for Gorbachev yet, so probably either Grigory Romanov or Viktor Grishin ends up in charge. The USSR had a lot of problems, but Gorbachev moving away from oppression (the only thing holding it together) really brought it undone. If there’s a hardliner in charge they could hobble on a while longer, and they would be significantly helped by the Gulf War oil shock.

Nothing changes. Soviets are a paper tiger by that point and only the most hard core right wing would see them as a major threat. Meanwhile by the election the country was going through a nasty Recession. As Clinton campaign manager said "it's the economy stupid."

No, the Soviets were always a threat and them still being around will affect voters’ thinking. Tens of thousands of nuclear missiles tend to have a sobering effect. It is not impossible Clinton could win, but Perot definitely wouldn’t get much traction. A frivolous isolationist vanity campaign wouldn’t be something most people would feel the country had time for.
 
Scenario 1 (Eastern Bloc collapses, USSR liberalizes/democratizes): The 1992 U.S. presidential election will probably be similar to OTL, with a Democratic victory if the early 1990s recession still occurs. Bill Clinton could still be the Democratic nominee, but butterfly effects could result in a different candidate - either one of the other OTL candidates or someone who didn't run in OTL - winning the nomination.

Scenario 2 (Eastern Bloc collapses, hardliner coup in 1991): I think the 1992 election could go either way depending on how the foreign policy situation develops. George Bush would have an advantage due to his foreign policy strengths. However, if the situation in the post-coup USSR spirals out of control, then a Democrat who is strong on foreign policy could win their party's nomination and then win the presidency. This scenario actually reminded me of Zhirinovsky's Russian Empire, which had the USSR survive (albeit under a different name) after an alternate 1991 coup attempt. In that story, Bob Kerrey wins the Democratic nomination and the 1992 election. Otherwise, another Democrat with foreign policy experience like Joe Biden or Sam Nunn might jump into the race. Since the POD for this scenario is in 1991, Al Gore still wouldn't run in 1992 because his son would still be recovering from his 1989 accident.

Scenario 3 (Reformed USSR/Warsaw Pact, Cold War continues but is in detente): The 1992 election could go either way here as well. Since foreign policy would remain a big issue due to the continued Cold War, this gives George Bush the advantage. If the Soviets are able to restrain Iraq from invading Kuwait, thus preventing the Gulf War, then the 1990 oil price shock would be averted and the early 1990s recession would be less severe, which also helps Bush. No reduction in defense spending would mean more defense-related jobs as well. However, without the Gulf War, Bush's approval rating would not skyrocket in 1991, which means that several Democrats who declined to run for president in OTL 1992 (such as Mario Cuomo or Dick Gephardt) might run in this scenario instead. I'm assuming the POD for this scenario is before 1980-85 to ensure the implementation of successful economic reforms in the Eastern Bloc. Butterfly effects could prevent Al Gore's son's 1989 accident, thus Gore might run for president again in 1992. The OTL early 1990s recession was triggered by the oil shock from the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, but the U.S. economy was already weak due to the savings and loans crisis, the restrictive monetary policy of the Federal Reserve (which reduced inflation, but limited economic expansion), and a crash in property values and construction work due to the 1980s real estate boom. A different catalyst could trigger a recession anyway. If the U.S. economy is in recession during or shortly before the 1992 election, then the Democrat is likely to win.

Scenario 4 (Hardline USSR/Warsaw Pact, Cold War gets hotter): With international tensions occupying the public's attention, this means foreign policy will be a critical issue. George Bush is most likely reelected riding on his strengths in that area, unless the Democrats nominate a foreign policy master who is able to claim that Bush is responsible for the world getting more dangerous.

As for Ross Perot, he would probably still run for president in these scenarios. The federal deficit would still be ballooning (especially if defense spending is not reduced), and NAFTA would still be a pressing issue. But with foreign policy distracting attention from economic issues, Perot might not perform as well as in OTL. Butterfly effects could prevent Perot from dropping out of the race and rejoining later, or they could cause him to drop out and stay out. In Scenario 1, I think Perot would perform similar to he did in OTL's election. In Scenarios 2 and 4, Perot would perform worse in the election because foreign affairs would be a more dominant issue for voters. In Scenario 3, Perot could perform better or worse than in OTL depending on how the American economy is doing.
 
Top