Bill Clinton and George W. Bush Presidencies in Reverse Order

So, after reading various posts on the "List Alternate Presidents or PMs" thread, I noticed some users had listed George W. Bush from 1993-2001 and Bill Clinton from 2001-2009, which has made me curious, what if their presidencies were in reverse order? Perhaps the PODs for this to work is Ronald Reagan being assassinated in 1981 and George H.W. Bush winning in 1984. Bush's vice president goes on to lose in 1988 to an uninspiring Democrat (perhaps Michael Dukakis as OTL), but that Democrat's term doesn't go well, allowing a George W. Bush who entered politics in the 1980s to win in 1992. Bush wins probably narrowly in 1996, and his second term doesn't go well, allowing Bill Clinton to win in 2000. How would the alternate presidents handle the issues of their respective times? Who would be their vice presidents in ATL? Would Hillary Clinton run for president in 2016 as OTL, assuming she is elected and re-elected to an alternate public office between 2008-2016? I was thinking maybe Hillary would be elected in the United States Senate Election in Illinois of 2008 and re-elected in 2014, perhaps all during a Republican presidency. Do you think Jeb Bush would win the Florida Gubernatorial election of 1998 and if so, would he win re-election in 2002? Do you think Bill Clinton's vice president could win in 2008? One inspiration for this inquiry was that George W. Bush is slightly older than Bill Clinton.
 
Last edited:
wow, interesting what if, Well, It is safe to say that the 80's remain roughly the safe in terms of the policies and politics which occur, with Dukakis causing a disruption period of 4 years, it is likely that he wouldn't have much effect on the overall conservative trend in the US, as Congress may have been very conservative during a Dukakis term, the 1990's would be a great way of showing the people shifting away from the republicans. I don't think we would have an Afghan or Iraq war if Clinton was president during 9/11, in fact Clinton tried to warn Bush Jr. about the threat of a terrorist attack on the homeland from Osama and Al Quieda, it is possible Clinton may have pushed for reforms in places such as airports before the events of 9/11. Without 9/11 happening and home grown Islamic resentment that fueled Bush's 2004 campaign, Clinton should have easily gained popularity among the American people, furthermore Clinton was a moderate, that gives him a greater deal of neutrality, which would prevent him from making the same mistakes as Bush did, I also predict that Clinton would hike up government spending, especially when the recession hits.
 
The 1980s would see many significant differences under Bush, but that's not really the focus of the thread.

I would also predict an early arrival of the latter phase of party realignment; a Republican wave in 1990 rather than '94. A Democrat in the White House with substantial Democratic majorities in the House and Senate would highlight the intra-party factionalism that remained at that time. When governing from a compromise position IOTL from 1980-92, there was some obfuscation of the problem, a lid was kept on it to some degree. Here, well, it's a bit like the GOP now being unable to do anything (a bit, there are differences). You'd see a wave of blue southern and Midwestern seats flip in the midterms and set up a call for a new kind of conservatism to represent this new coalition.

Personally, I think it's more likely this conservatism goes darker and more Tea-Party-Like at this point in history, but a real shot at Bush's Compassionate Conservatism isn't totally unreasonable. There's even a good case to be made that the OTL Bush foreign policy team might knock it out of the park in 1992 if a Democrat were in office dealing with the end of the Cold War and the invasion of Kuwait.

But I do think if Bush wins in 1992 he really does govern quite a bit less conservatively than OTL. For one, Reaganism was stillborn and we've had a moderate 1980s. For another, we've had no Third Way movement pushing the Dems to the center and forcing the GOP to find solid ground to the right. Bush, in my opinion, governs like a more soft-spoken Nixon, leaving the paranoia to his foreign policy team. We get early (but weak) consensus on climate change. We probably get a bipartisan tax bill. We probably do still get some version of neoliberal education reform like NCLB. A firm "No" on gay rights and gender equality, continuation of the drug war, maybe a little movement on racial tension. We almost certainly get quite a few instances of foreign adventurism- much more participation in Yugoslavia; probably Iraq; perhaps Somalia, if that's going as per OTL. Would be interested to hear opinions of how Bush and Yeltsin move forward.

How Clinton gets into the White House is less clear. I guess if the Democrats spend 1990-2000 fighting a rearguard against erosion of their traditional bases of power, a southern candidate has a good chance. A 1996 run makes a lot more sense, and perhaps we could even have him run twice. Have the Dukakis-influenced party rally around a different candidate, create some sour grapes at a seemingly unfair primary season that saw outsider Clinton disadvantaged by the system. Then have him come back in 2000 a known quantity with broad support and see him win.

By now, he's missed his chance to ignite the Third Way movement and he's governing his party as a bit of a centrist outsider, but it can be done. Especially considering how conciliatory he was as a leader IOTL. I think we see him using his power as more of a moderator for congressional disputes than to push his own agenda. I wouldn't be surprised if his VP was a minority or a woman; certainly a liberal. At this point he'd likely be able to continue an incremental push on climate change with a more moderate GOP. If the economy's roughly OTL we probably see some slightly more liberal counter-cyclicalism against the downturn than he'd have been comfortable with IOTL, just because of the more liberal party he's now in charge of. That said, he's poised to set up his OTL relationship with a finance sector that's no longer really scared of social issues like gay rights. The OTL liberal donor class emerges as a faction within the Democratic Party.

Moving past the Clinton presidency we've got two parties with two broad factions of similar: moderates and ideological crusaders. The left is stronger than the moderates among the Democrats, the moderates and conservatives are about equal among the Republicans. From here lots of reasonable trajectories are possible.
 
Here is a quick sketch from a timeline I've long ago abandoned. Might pick it back up someday.

1. Reagan killed in '81 by Hinckley, Bush takes office and is reelected in 1984. He retires in 1988.
2. A Democrat (I had Ted Kennedy in mind) wins in 1988, but is plagued by scandal.
3. Dubya, who was elected to the House in 1978 over Kent Hance, wins the 1984 Senate election after beating Ron Paul and Phil Gramm in the GOP primary.
4. 1992 sees Senator George W. Bush defeat President Kennedy (I actually planned to have Kennedy shot to make it three for three in the original draft IIRC)
5. 1996 is a narrow reelection for President Bush, ironically defeating Senators John Kerry/Governor Lawton Chiles by about a point.
6. Bill Clinton, the failed 1992 nominee, makes a comeback in 2000.
 
Here is an old scenario of mine about how to make GW Bush president in 1988:

***

1978--Dubya narrowly defeats conservative Democrat Kent Hance in race for Texas 19th Congressional District. He is re-elected in 1980 and 1982.

(In OTL, Hance won a fairly narrow victory. How to change the result? Well, for one thing, don't have the divisive GOP primary where Jim Reese presented Bush with a strong challenge which made the race seem like a proxy for the forthcoming Reagan-versus-Bush-senior presidential race. Or at any rate, after the primary, have Reese back Bush more enthusiastically. Also, have Bush counterattack when Hance brings up the Texas Tech "Bush bash" which featured--horror of horrors--*free beer*. See http://www.nytimes.com/library/politics/camp/072700wh-bush-lubbock.html for an account of the campaign.)

1984--Crazed "lone gunman" (who claims he is trying to impress Brooke Shields) kills vice-president George Herbert Walker Bush. President Reagan surprises everyone by naming Bush's son, Congressman George W. Bush, as vice-president. (After just a few terms in the House of Representatives? Well, Mondale after all would soon name Geraldine Ferraro as *his* running mate--and *her* experience in national politics was limited to a few terms in the House.) Reagan explains to aides that Bush is from a key state and will provide both youth and "continuity" in the vice-presidency. He jokes that "we won't even have to change those Reagan-Bush buttons from 1980." Reagan-Bush ticket easily defeats Mondale-Ferraro in general election. (Incidentally, Dubya would not be the youngest vice-president in US history--that honor goes to John Breckinridge.)

1988--Vice-president George W. Bush wins GOP presidential nomination over divided opposition (Dole, Kemp, Robertson, several others). For his running mate, he knows he needs someone considerably older and more experienced than himself, and chooses a Senator from Indiana--Richard Lugar. The Democrats nominate Michael Dukakis to oppose Bush. Dubya runs as a "compassionate conservative," promising a "kinder, gentler America." When his youth becomes an issue, he points out that he is not substantially younger than JFK or TR when they became president. Dukakis snorts, "We in Massachusetts knew Jack Kennedy, and Mr. Bush is no Jack Kennedy."...

Thanks to peace and prosperity and an inept debating performance by Dukakis (who stumbles badly on a question about how he would feel about capital punishment if his wife were murdered), Bush wins by about 52 to 48 percent (a little worse than his father would do in OTL--the "youth and inexperience" issue did hurt somewhat).

Shortly after the election, Bush starts naming his Cabinet, including his old House colleague Dick Cheney of Wyoming as Secretary of Defense...

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/CHIhVWyBQx0/ozOqghXqifcJ

***

After that, GW Bush is defeated by Bill Clinton in 1992 for roughly the same reasons his father lost in OTL...
 
Top