Alternate History Challenge: Make the Reform Party of the United States "Stick"

I hadn't known this, but apparently in when the Reform Party was formed in 1996 around Ross Perot's candidacy, there was a real expectation that the party would be able to cement itself as a legitimate major party, the viable third party everyone was hoping for.

Of course, that didn't happen. Perot under-performed in 1996 (compared to his 1992 run), Pat Buchanan won the nomination in 2000 and squandered their automatic ballot access in all fifty states they won in 1996, and in 2008 their nominee won only a couple hundred votes in the general election. They haven't even managed to make themselves one of the "major" third parties, like the Libertarians or Greens or Constituitonalists. They did win something when Jesse Ventura won the 1998 Minnesota gubernatorial race, but that's about it.

So. Your challenge, should you choose to accept it, is to make the Reform Party "stick" in American politics. With a POD no earlier than the 1996 election, make the party win some congressional and gubernatorial elections, have a candidate that matches or betters Perot's performance in 1996, and generally become like the Independence Party of Minnesota is, except on a national scale.

(Yes, I know MaskedPickle's excellent "A Giant Sucking Sound" timeline has a Reform Party analogue, the Freedom Party, form during Ross Perot's presidency in time for the 1994 midterms, but that's not what this is about.)

You may proceed.
 
The Reform Party biggest problem was that it was a personalty cult. Maybe if Reform candidates ran for Governor,Comgress and local office starting in 1992.
 
Donald Trump might have run in 2000. Gore wins, then. The Republicans could turn on Reform and purge their moderates, who might go to Reform.
 

Jasen777

Donor
It doesn't seem like Perot was all that interested in forming a long term viable third party. So that's a problem.

Getting a party to be truly viable (and more than something like the Greens) is not easy. Last time we had a party emerge to be a lasting major party was the Republicans 160 years ago. And that was over the decaying body of the Whigs and help lead to a civil war.

The best since then was probably the Popular Party and the Dixiecrats. Both somewhat regional and later co-opted.

So I'm just saying this would be tough to pull off...
 
Best way to do this is to go back to 92 and have Perot win or come a hell of a lot closer. This might allow some of the moderates in the increasingly extremist republican party to join up and could cement them in the senate.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
If Perot does not leave the race for his daughter wedding, and he spends a lot of his money, he wins. Well, at least some polls say he would have. Then have the 8 great economic years of Bill Clinton, and have Perot leave office very popular. Then also have him or at least his close advisers decide to build a party after a year or so in office. Then have the House and Senate controlled by only one party for the last six years of Perot. The out party will have a lot of defections to Perot's party, and if Perot is very successful, either the Democrats or Republicans are a dying party. Then have Perot pick a popular successor as his VP in 1996, say Ventura or Al Gore. This successor wins the Presidency in 2000 in a very narrow election. Twelve years in power should assure the Perot party last for at least another couple of decades. I am not sure who Perot would have cobbled together for his majority but maybe a combination of the unions of the democrats (no free trade), environmentalist of the democrats (no NAFTA, some practical environmental initiatives), Evangelical Republicans, and a few others.
 
Thanks guys, but what I meant in my OP was that getting the Reform Party off the ground is pretty doable if Perot is elected President, and this board already has a wonderfully thorough exploration of that possibility in MaskedPickle's "A Giant Sucking Sound" timeline.

How can we get the Reform Party to be at least somewhat more successful (ie, relevant in electoral politics) with a PoD after the 1996 election is the question.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Thanks guys, but what I meant in my OP was that getting the Reform Party off the ground is pretty doable if Perot is elected President, and this board already has a wonderfully thorough exploration of that possibility in MaskedPickle's "A Giant Sucking Sound" timeline.

How can we get the Reform Party to be at least somewhat more successful (ie, relevant in electoral politics) with a PoD after the 1996 election is the question.

Ok, misunderstood post. It has to have a strong leader. I would say Perot needs a strong transitional leader, perhaps someone like Ralph Nader. If the all 50 states ballot access is combined with something like the Green Parties infrastructure, then maybe it can survive. The party needs an extremely talented transition leader to move it from a cult of Perot, to at least a strong regional party. The party will need at least 5 senators to give it some real power, so the base will support it. I am not sure how Perot was viewed by Hispanics or Blacks, but becoming the party of the minority could also be a path. For the Blacks, someone like Colin Powell who would be a viable Presidential candidate in 2000 combined with selected Black governors of a few southern states. Or some Hispanic candidate who could be a credible 2000 presidential candidate, combined with a Perot party Hispanic winning the California governor recall race.
 
It's not going to happen. No third party is viable long-term in the U.S. without a complete overhaul of the electoral system. FPTP + presidentialism basically makes a two-party system unavoidable.

Even if somehow Perot managed to win (which is close to ASB), the party would fade very quickly after his term.

The absolute best you can do is if you keep the party from the internal splits it had in '96-'00, which leaves the various state-level Independence Parties (NY, MN) continue to stay affiliated with the Reform Party. Then you might have occasional state legislators or very occasionally have someone win a statewide office.
 
If as was the case in Giant Sucking Sound, you had elected officials defect from the Democrat and Republican parties and have them win as Reformers than you could build lasting organizations in the states.
 
It's not going to happen. No third party is viable long-term in the U.S. without a complete overhaul of the electoral system. FPTP + presidentialism basically makes a two-party system unavoidable.

Even if somehow Perot managed to win (which is close to ASB), the party would fade very quickly after his term.

The absolute best you can do is if you keep the party from the internal splits it had in '96-'00, which leaves the various state-level Independence Parties (NY, MN) continue to stay affiliated with the Reform Party. Then you might have occasional state legislators or very occasionally have someone win a statewide office.

That's essentially what I'm envisioning. A coalition of strong state parties that are constantly able to wield significant influence in their states, getting some congressional representation and, once in a blue moon, winning gubernatorial or Senate races with a celebrity candidate a la Jesse Ventura.

Perhaps if they had a stronger showing in the 1998 midterms, winning something, anything besides the Minnesota Governor's House, they could have gotten someone decent in 2000 for their Presidential nominee.
 
Top