AH Challenge: President Perot in '92.

Would Perot have been a good president?


  • Total voters
    39
Was sorta inspired by the 'President Tsongas' thread.............try to make Ross Perot win the '92 election. Bonus points for those who create a viable PoD no earlier than Carter's victory in 1976. ;)
 
Entirely depends upon whether the Democrats and Republicans in congress are willing to cooperate with him or not.

It will be interesting to see what influence this has on the partisan nature of politics-probably depends upon whether he becomes associated with a particular political party, or can retain the perception of impartiality- the latter will require a seriously delicate balancing act. More likely then not he will be congresses bitch.

It would also be interesting to see what impact he had on congressional elections. If the public perceives congress to have ignored Perot's political mandate, '94 would see a large number of independent candidates making successful bids. Or if the Republicans adopt a strategy of cooperation with Perot while Democrats are seen as obstructing him, we could see the same backlash against Democrats '94.
 
Well, I think a good point of departure would be him giving a practice run-through of that disastrous speech he delivered to the NAACP and getting yelled at when he got to the phrase "you people." "You mean they might find that offensive? Well golly. Some people sure are sensitive. I'll take it out anyway."

He never endures that misstep, never gets out of the race, Douglas Wilder accepts his offer of being his running mate, and then Jerry Brown endorses him just before the Democratic Convention.

Even with some colorful lapses, and probably still some interesting allegations against President Bush with respect to his daughter's wedding, Perot hangs on to win.

Honestly, I think it would be a mix. He would adopt a more protectionist trade policy, which I support. He would impose as part of his deficit reduction package a high gas tax, which would spur the adoption of alternative fuels and conservation. And he would definitely be able to force the adoption of his initial deficit reduction package, which would be pretty draconian, because his election would have scared both major parties half to death.

The negatives to a Perot presidency come not from his policies but from his character. I see Perot having Nixon-like problems with respect to control, surveillance, and the independence of his appointees. I'd expect there would be a never-ending string of scandals about this sort of thing that ultimately would devour his presidency.

And I think he would likely not be very focused on foreign policy, preferring instead to push his domestic reformist agenda, and disdaining George H.W. Bush's preoccupation with events overseas. And at this very sensitive period in the post-Cold War history, that could have bad ramifications in all the hot spots of the early nineties, especially the Balkans, Somalia, Haiti, Israel/Palestine, North Korea, and the former Soviet Union.
 
Well, I think a good point of departure would be him giving a practice run-through of that disastrous speech he delivered to the NAACP and getting yelled at when he got to the phrase "you people." "You mean they might find that offensive? Well golly. Some people sure are sensitive. I'll take it out anyway."

He never endures that misstep, never gets out of the race, Douglas Wilder accepts his offer of being his running mate, and then Jerry Brown endorses him just before the Democratic Convention.

Even with some colorful lapses, and probably still some interesting allegations against President Bush with respect to his daughter's wedding, Perot hangs on to win.

I don't remember the NAACP speech but I'll take your word for it. Considering Perot wasn't going to get much of the "black vote" from "you people" anyway, it's not major. Just have him never get out of the race. His running mate is irrelevant, Jerry Brown's endorsement is even more irrelevant, if that's possible.

Honestly, I think it would be a mix. He would adopt a more protectionist trade policy, which I support. He would impose as part of his deficit reduction package a high gas tax, which would spur the adoption of alternative fuels and conservation. And he would definitely be able to force the adoption of his initial deficit reduction package, which would be pretty draconian, because his election would have scared both major parties half to death.

Agree with all of the above, but with minor change of emphasis on the draconian as most of the other politicians are so self-absorbed as to be incapable of being scared half to death, even when they should be.

...And I think he would likely not be very focused on foreign policy, preferring instead to push his domestic reformist agenda, and disdaining George H.W. Bush's preoccupation with events overseas. And at this very sensitive period in the post-Cold War history, that could have bad ramifications in all the hot spots of the early nineties, especially the Balkans, Somalia, Haiti, Israel/Palestine, North Korea, and the former Soviet Union.

What Perot would prefer and what he would have to do...
 
Top