AHC: Bush 92, Perot 96

How could George Bush win in 1992 and Ross Perot follow it up by winning in 1996?

Maybe Clinton implodes, most of his support goes to Perot in 1992 (resulting in his coming second in the PV) and Perot rides the momentum to a 96 win?
 
Well for 1992, maybe Bill’s scandals come out in late October? More democrats could go to Perot giving him a better showing, and costing Clinton the election. Perot is tough, but perhaps the democrats and republicans both nominate two weak candidates that Perot could hammer about trade and the debt with Perot choosing Jerry Brown as his VP to appeal to more democrats in the process.
 
IMO, Bush would've won had the Democrats nominated Brown - who had promised to make Jesse Jackson his running mate. Maybe this would've occurred had Gore run in 1992 and split the Southern vote with Clinton. (But I should emphasize maybe). But even in the event that Bush is re-elected in an upset Perot is not going to be elected. No third party candidate has ever won the White House, and remember that in 1996 Perot's support was cut in half from 1992. The Democrats are pretty much guaranteed to win in 1996 after sixteen years of Republican rule and the GOP puts up Dan Quayle. (For those who say that the GOP would win again in 1996 due to the good economy, note that in 1997 British Labour won in a landslide after 18 years of Tory rule despite the improved economy under Major).
 
Bush getting re-elected is fairly easily. Have Jerry Brown not make his gaffe about Jews in NYC and Brown easily could've took the fight to the convention by winning New York, California and other close races. Brown as candidate with a contested convention would've easily cost the Democrats the race. In 1996, however, I really doubt Perot could defeat the GOP; not just the Third Party issue and his own eccentric nature, but also the fact the economy would be so good and a stable foreign policy situation would be a major boon to the GOP.
 
@Amadeus and @History Learner


Yes, the 1996 economy is very very good, but we've also seen 16 years of Republican rule in the White House and there's a strong possibility that the GOP will make Senate gains in 1994 and take the house in 1994 due to retirements. Republicans will have an exhaustion problem.

As for Perot 1996 doing more poorly than Perot 1992, I think that had to do with the President being Bill Clinton. Democrats were just more divided in 1992 than in 1996 I think. Perot in a field with no incumbent could compound his 1992 numbers I think, or perhaps do even better depending on how well he does in 1992 TTL.


If Republicans run the Gaffe-prone Quayle and Democrats continue to be divided, I think there'd be room for Perot. Especially if Perot has a real running mate (ergo, not Pat Choate).
 
Ronald Reagan, for whatever reason, decides to offer Ross Perot the position of Secretary of Commerce when it becomes vacant in 1987. Other than Herbert Hoover, Secretaries of Commerce tend to disappear in obscurity, but Perot is a big success at the position. He becomes so popular that Bush decides he has other choice than to keep Perot on. They work surprisingly well together, the Bush administration is more successful because of Perot, and there is no Perot campaign in 1992. So Bush wins in 1992.

After the 1992 election, Bush either moves Perot to Defense, or Perot leaves the administration and successfully runs for Governor of Texas. The Senate seat held by Lloyd Bentsen, who would not become Secretary of the Treasure and would retire in 1994, is another possibility. Either way, Perot runs and defeats Bob Dole for the Republican nomination in 1996 and goes on to win the election.
 
@Amadeus and @History Learner


Yes, the 1996 economy is very very good, but we've also seen 16 years of Republican rule in the White House and there's a strong possibility that the GOP will make Senate gains in 1994 and take the house in 1994 due to retirements. Republicans will have an exhaustion problem.

As for Perot 1996 doing more poorly than Perot 1992, I think that had to do with the President being Bill Clinton. Democrats were just more divided in 1992 than in 1996 I think. Perot in a field with no incumbent could compound his 1992 numbers I think, or perhaps do even better depending on how well he does in 1992 TTL.


If Republicans run the Gaffe-prone Quayle and Democrats continue to be divided, I think there'd be room for Perot. Especially if Perot has a real running mate (ergo, not Pat Choate).

Personally I doubt Quayle could ever head a ticket after he gets national exposure; they were trying to dump him in 1992 IOTL. I think 1996 would be a lot like 1948; the DLC would be the Southern Dems of 1948, the good economy and a fear of change would be for the GOP what it was for the Dems then.
 
Personally I doubt Quayle could ever head a ticket after he gets national exposure; they were trying to dump him in 1992 IOTL. I think 1996 would be a lot like 1948; the DLC would be the Southern Dems of 1948, the good economy and a fear of change would be for the GOP what it was for the Dems then.

If not Quayle, then I would think Republicans nominate Dole, Kemp, or Wilson in 1996.

You think the DLC would run an independent candidacy in 1996? Maybe a Perot-DLC hybrid ticket could happen.
 
If not Quayle, then I would think Republicans nominate Dole, Kemp, or Wilson in 1996.

You think the DLC would run an independent candidacy in 1996? Maybe a Perot-DLC hybrid ticket could happen.

No, more in terms of they sit out or are marginalized by the party at large with consequent effects.
 
Top