AHC: Ross Perot Wins or Deadlocks in 1992

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: After 1900' started by John Fredrick Parker, Jul 11, 2019.

  1. John Fredrick Parker Donor

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    So with the recent passing of such a historic figure, I figured it was a fine time to revisit this topic. (@MaskedPickle )

    With no PoDs prior to January 1992, how could the election have resulted in either an outright victory for Perot, or an Electoral College deadlock which in turn denied the presidency to both of his opponents?
     
    gap80 likes this.
  2. rsha1s Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2017
    First and foremost, Mr. Perot should not have temporarily dropped out of the race. I’m not sure about an outright victory for Perot, but it’s plausible that he can win a few states here and there had he not dropped out, dragging Bush and Clinton below the 270 threshold. Release some scandals and voila! You have a President Perot.
     
    gap80, VirginiaStronk, POTUS and 6 others like this.
  3. Jackson Lennock Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2017
    Well, if he just didn't drop out he could have won the popular vote and maybe led the electoral college. Getting the 270 is another tricky matter.

    Democrats held the Majority of Congressional delegations and the Senate, so odds are Clinton would be President. The big issue would be if Clinton came second (or even third) and the Democrats made him President.
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2019
  4. SsgtC Ready to Call it a Day

    Joined:
    May 14, 2017
    Win a couple States to force the election to the House? Sure. Outright win the Presidency? Not a chance. Even assuming he wins a handful of States, odds are, Bill Clinton is still sworn in as the nation's 42nd President as the House had a democratic majority both before and after the 1992 election
     
    gap80, rsha1s and Kaze like this.
  5. Jackson Lennock Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2017
    If Clinton is third, that means the House can make him President (the House picks from the top 3) but the Senate cannot make Gore Vice President (The Senate picks from the top 2). In which case, I suppose Clinton could cut a deal with Perot to give Perot a good Cabinet spot and let Perot pick some other Cabinet members so that he isn't seen as an illegitimate President. If the house and senate just force Clinton and Gore through, it'd be bad for Clinton's legitimacy.

    I can see Perot pushing for influence in Treasury, Office of Management and Budget, Transportation, and US Trade Representative. Plus something good for Admiral Stockdale.

    In Ken Langone's "I Love Capitalism" he mentions that some Perot team folks in some very private conversations floated Perot dropping out to endorse Bush if Bush would let Perot pick some Cabinet spots. The issue is that Bush's team leaked it and so Perot vehemently denied it. If that's all true, then Perot seems like a guy who'd cut a deal.
     
  6. John Fredrick Parker Donor

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    @Jackson Lennock If the Dems nominate someone other than Clinton who happens to be in worse health, and/or Perot picks someone other than Stockade to be his running mate, TTL could easily see a Third Party President emerging from such a deal.
     
    gap80 likes this.
  7. Historian299 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2019
    1. Perot never drops out
    2. More scandles appear for Clinton
    3. Bush has a health issue?

    Perot can't outright win. But if he wins a pluratiy of the popular vote, that would put huge pressure on the House to pick him. Let's say it doesn't. Say the House picks Clinton

    The GOP even more thinks Clinton is illegtimate and refuses to work with him at all.

    Perot runs in 1996 on being ''cheated'' and wins in a landslide
     
  8. LuckyLuciano Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2018
    Maybe ITTL, Perot can convince Healy to be his VP. In a scenario that has Perot and Bush as the top two, I can see her being the Democratic preference over Quayle much more than Stockdale.
     
  9. SiddFinch1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Location:
    state of mind
    As many said, have Perot not dropout. Add a legitimate vp candidate with him. Add a Clinton scandal and Bush health scare to depressed their totals.

    Very hard to have a path to 270 ev or a house win. I suppose you could try to deadlock the house and have the moderate dems and republicans (yes they once existed) join up for compromise candidate Perot but it's a long shot
     
    GermanDjinn likes this.
  10. Masked Grizzly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2011
    Aside from possibly Jeane Kirkpatrick who else would be a legitimate VP candidate for Perot?
     
    gap80 likes this.
  11. Oppo Nationalize Five Guys

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2016
    Location:
    Maryland
    Jerry Brown
    Lowell Weicker
    Paul Tsongas
    Bernadine Healy
    William French Smith (Perot wanted to pick him before learning he was dead)
     
  12. Historian299 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2019
    The best bet is for Perot to win a plurality but lose in the House

    4 years later he wins in a repeat of 1824
     
  13. Wolfram Fair to middlin'

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2010
    Location:
    University of Houston, Houston, Texas
    Dick Lamm and John Silber were also up in there. Maybe Orson Swindle could be a hipster pick.
     
  14. Oppo Nationalize Five Guys

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2016
    Location:
    Maryland
    The most interesting potential option was the one and only Hunter S. Thompson.
     
  15. Jackson Lennock Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2017
    • Stockdale was a pretty good safety pick.
    • Jerry Brown in 92 hated Bill Clinton and said that Perot was electable. It's also worth noting that when he ran for Mayor of Oakland in 2000 he did so as an Independent who ripped on the two party system.
    • Tsongas met with Perot in 92, though he didn't endorse. It seems that he liked Perot quite a bit personally and found Perot receptive to his ideas. See here.
    • Jeane Kirkpatrick kind of liked Perot
    • John Silber was rumored in 92, though I'm not sure why a University President makes the ticket better
    • Perot liked Bernadine Healy, though like Silber I don't see the advantage
    • Lowell Weicker was an Independent who looked at running Reform in 2000, so I suppose he could do

    I don't think Dick Lamm would be on the VP list in 1992. He only popped up in 1996.

    Brown, Tsongas, or Kirkpatrick would probably be a stronger VP pick than OTL.

    If Brown brings Perot California, he's certainly the most valuable running mate.

    Kirkpatrick would be the most fun running mate I think. She's a tough lady, brings FP chops, and helps double down on the ticket's bellicosity.
     
    gap80, GermanDjinn, Omar04 and 3 others like this.
  16. M79 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Perot stays in, wins enough states to force election to Congress who chooses Perot as compromise candidate.
     
    John Fredrick Parker likes this.
  17. dw93 Can't Afford to be a Donor

    Joined:
    May 8, 2015
    Location:
    Illinois
    Clinton emerging via the House picking him after a deadlock in the Electoral College is more likely than Perot winning outright IMHO. Clinton, of course would be a lame duck from the start and likely a one termer.
     
  18. Thomas Jefferson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2012
    Have Gennifer Flowers come forth in the general election, rather than during the primary, giving Clinton less time to recover.
     
  19. John Fredrick Parker Donor

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Something @Jackson Lennock and me were getting at above - if the Democratic nominee comes in third in a deadlocked election, the Democratic Senate will likely vote for Ross Perot's running mate; then, even if the House still manages to elevate the Democrat President, they'll only be one heart beat away from giving the White House to said VP.

    There are other ways this can go as well - it may even be possible for some representatives to break with their party and vote for Perot, possibly leading to a few states deadlocking, and possibly even enough to deny any nominee a majority of states; in which case, the VP becomes Acting President. In fact, taken in tangent with possible other factors (e.g. health issues), if this possibility becomes strong enough, it might even be possible for the Democratic nominee to concede the White House to Ross Perot outright.
     
  20. serdog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2012
    the really interesting thing is if Perot does really well and Clinton does poorly( finishing 3rd in the EC to make things even crazier) could there be a deadlock in the house (voting as states remember) because some Representatives would cast for Perot (I mean of your district was carried by a wide majority it could be hard to vote for Clinton even as a Dem). If this happens who does the Senate elect as VP and potentially Acting president ? Let's assume a Dem majority that is relatively strong .