Bush's Second Term

I am obviously referring to the original President Bush. I know there have been threads on the scenario before, but the ones I found were not particularly detailed. Also, they are all at least a year or close to a year old. Anyway, first of all, how can Bush win in 1992? I know this is not as easy as keeping Perot out of the race, but does anyone have any ideas how to do this. Perhaps if we can get the Democrats to nominate the interminably dull Tsongas? Anyway, his reelection accomplished what does Bush Sr.'s second term look like? What is the cultural impact of no Clinton Presidency or at least no Clinton Presidency between 1993-1997? I doubt that you will see a Republican sweep of the same size in 1994, with some exceptions midterms tend to be anti incumbent in nature. With Bush in the White House, I doubt that Gingrich is going to be able to overcome that tendency, especially if there isn't a reaction towards Clinton for obvious reasons. Now, there is a possibility that 1994 is an overall Republican victory, but they probably don't take the House.

So President Bush 1989-1997

Any thoughts?
 
A 28 year hold on the Presidency, by any party, especially in the modern era, strains plausibility. Eventually incumbent fatigue sets in. Also, Barack Obama is very unlikely to be President if Bush Sr. is reelected. His entire Presidency is based on a very particular context. Barack Obama might be President, but the course of history would suggest the role belonged to someone else. Perhaps someone we don't know now since history went the way it did. I'm not even talking about butterflies, but accumulated direct cause and effect.
 
I suspect we would see more in the way of liberal outcomes under GHWB then we did under Bill Clinton- GHWB increased taxes to deal with the deficit like Clinton did, but also achieved reforms regarding civil rights, environment and immigration that Clinton couldn't match.
 
I suspect we would see more in the way of liberal outcomes under GHWB then we did under Bill Clinton- GHWB increased taxes to deal with the deficit like Clinton did, but also achieved reforms regarding civil rights, environment and immigration that Clinton couldn't match.

MaYBE that's the POD, he didn't piss off the conservative base. NO Buchanan challange, higher conservative turnout. Kept some of the Reagan Democrats.

And Gingrich was working in the House for a long time building his Revolution. I don't think we can count on a BUsh win stopping that.

(not all of it was Gingrich's work of course. Many districts were changing slowly anyways).
 
The economy doesn't tank in 1991? Or Bush doesn't try to reduce the deficit when it does, instead focusing on stimulating the economy?
 
George H.W. Bush: 1989-1997
Albert Gore, Jr.: 1997-2005
John McCain: 2005-2007 (died of heart attack)
John Ashcroft: 2007-2009

Howard Dean: 2009-Present
 
George Bush (R) 1989-1997
Robert "Bob" Kerrey (D) 1997-2001
John McCain (R) 2001-2005
William "Bill" Richardson (D) 2005-2013

Bush is reelected as a result of a more aggressive campaign waged against both Clinton an Perot, highlighting the former's record as governor and promise not to run, and the latter's more unsavory ideas and views.
 
Part of the problem here is how poorly Bush did historically. From what I've read, Ross Perot voters were about evenly split. If that's the case then the removal of Perot results in a 47-52 loss on Bush's part. True, Bush could have hit Clinton harder, but aside from exploiting the sexual stuff more I'm not sure what a more aggressive campaign would look like. Maybe I'm biased here, but I think the best chance Bush has is some sort of alternate outcome in the primaries. If the Democrats nominate a less charismatic "90's style" kind of candidate, a candidate with less campaigning savy Bush may have had a slight chance. Or perhaps we see a candidate who cannot present himself as a novelty in the same way that Clinton did. The only way I see Bush beating Clinton is some kind of late hour sex scandal as has been suggested.

So how does history differ from January 20th 1993 and afterwards?
 
Part of the problem here is how poorly Bush did historically. From what I've read, Ross Perot voters were about evenly split. If that's the case then the removal of Perot results in a 47-52 loss on Bush's part. True, Bush could have hit Clinton harder, but aside from exploiting the sexual stuff more I'm not sure what a more aggressive campaign would look like. Maybe I'm biased here, but I think the best chance Bush has is some sort of alternate outcome in the primaries. If the Democrats nominate a less charismatic "90's style" kind of candidate, a candidate with less campaigning savy Bush may have had a slight chance. Or perhaps we see a candidate who cannot present himself as a novelty in the same way that Clinton did. The only way I see Bush beating Clinton is some kind of late hour sex scandal as has been suggested.

So how does history differ from January 20th 1993 and afterwards?

The whole 1992 Bush campaign was trying to run the war. Little effort was made to point out how Clinton's economic policies as proposed were not far off from Bush's, which, if exploited, could be spun to be a reason to vote for Bush whose experience and long record of public service could more effectively grow the economy than the upstart governor's.

What we do know is that Bush still implements NAFTA. Some sort of more enduring tax reform plan seems possible too. What won't happen is the gingrich Congress and everything which goes along that. Maybe Bush will have a slightly different policy towards Somalia, Haiti, and the Balkans, but I'm not sure.
 

Thande

Donor
It seems really hard to us now considering the economy and the fact that the Republicans had been in power 12 years, but let's not forget that until quite late in 1992, the Democrats were universally thought of as unelectable. What was that Dilbert strip at the time--"I'm running for President, I want to try to reunite a divided party that's had a lot of defeats" "You're running as a Democrat?" "No, a Communist--I actually want to have a chance at winning".

Maybe if instead of Perot there was a third party candidate who took more left wing votes? Or Perot not running at all would help...
 
First of all, Bush cannot sign that 1990 tax increase, which fractured the already-skeptical base and was a key factor in Perot's rise. Then he has to shift towards domestic affairs after Iraq is cleaned up, announce in 1991 rather than January 1992 and try to get the deficit under control with spending cuts only. Killing Clinton's candidacy is easy: bombing the Flowers interview or finishing third in New Hampshire are just two of the better-known PODs. Try to bring forth some bold ideas, like a Balanced Budget Amendment or a PWROR analogue, and run with them.
 
Top