Clinton Waits, A Different 1992 Election?

Supposing for the sake of argument that for whatever reason Bill Clinton decides to not challenge for the Presidency in 1992, perhaps George Bush doesn't compromise over raising taxes, but waits until 1996 before throwing his hat in the ring. The first question becomes does this bring any more candidates for the Democratic nomination over our timeline's out of the woodwork, and the concomitant second question of who would be the most likely to win? The third main question is would a different challenger be enough for Bush to eke out a re-election, with or without his previous mishandling of the tax issue?
 
My guess is Paul Tsongas or Jerry Brown would get the nomination. All the other big name Democrats sat it out because they thought Bush was going to be unbeatable due to the Gulf War. I don't see how Clinton sitting it out would bring any of them in the race, and Kerrey and Harkin were pretty weak (each only won one state each) which is why they got out as early as they did. Tsongas and Brown won 7 and 8 states respectively.

As to the general election, keep in mind the recession and the weak recovery hurt Bush as much or more than the Tax pledge being broken did, so he'll still be vulnerable. Tsongas vs. Bush probably narrowly goes Tsongas and Perot probably does better in this scenario as I think he'd attract more Democrats as Tsongas was a boring candidate. Brown vs. Bush, Brown was so eccentric as a politician, being very liberal socially and very conservative economically. Brown, like Tsongas could win a narrow one, but if Bush could beat any candidate, it's "Moonbeam" Brown.
 
Brown, like Tsongas could win a narrow one, but if Bush could beat any candidate, it's "Moonbeam" Brown.

Also, Brown holds positions similar to Perot, so Perot may not run and Brown would gain a good many of his supporters.
 
Also, Brown holds positions similar to Perot, so Perot may not run and Brown would gain a good many of his supporters.

True, but didn't Perot run just for the sake of sabotaging Bush Sr.? I know Perot didn't actually spoil the election, but wasn't that why (or at least Partially why) he ran?
 
True, but didn't Perot run just for the sake of sabotaging Bush Sr.? I know Perot didn't actually spoil the election, but wasn't that why (or at least Partially why) he ran?

I think he ran to win, and for a time he was winning. In any case, I think he would bow out if a Perot-like guy took control of the Democratic Party.
 
I think Tsongas would win. He's a fiscal conservative so it'd be hard to characterise him as a 'tax and spend liberal' and the establishment probably rallies around him. After a big victory in New Hampshire Tsongas is the clear front runner and wins the next few primaries. Maybe Doug Wilder stays in the race and does well in the South but I think Tsongas would likely be the nominee, though Brown might score some upsets, be the main challenger and make it close. No Clinton so Tsongas is the nominee and while he'd win closer due to being less charismatic and slick the bad economy would probably give him a narrow victory. So President Tsongas.
 
Top