DBWI: George HW Bush Runs for a Second term

As we all know, President Bush announced in late 1991 that he would not seek re election in 1992 due to his son's role in the Savings and Loan scandal, leading to a bitter primary fight between Vice President Quayle and Senato Bob Dole, the eventual 1992 Republican nominee.

Dole and his running mate Carroll Campbell then went on to lose to Governor Mario Cuomo and his running mate Senator Al Gore. Cuomo and Gore then beat Dan Quayle (who was IMHO a sacrificial lamb as Cuomo would be impossible to beat) and his running mate Dick Cheney in 1996 and Gore narrowly beat John McCain in 2000.

My question is what if Bush sought a second term? Would he win? Would we see a different Democratic primary and nominee?

Edit: Also, it was rumored that billionaire Ross Perot would run at the time, but he instead endorsed Bob Dole. Would he run if Bush ran for a second term?
 
Last edited:
Probably not I mean the economy was in a bad place at that point and he went back on his promises of no new taxes. I also think Dan Quayle wouldn't came into his own during the primary and help his son senate campaign later on along with the rise of President John Shadegg in 2008 because Quayle endorsement helped him a lot.
 
OOC (entire comment):

I have some issues with this. First, Mario Cuomo could IOTL have run in either 1988 or 1992 and didn't, for reasons that still haven't been disclosed. I don't think Bush not running in 1992 would have changed this. For whatever reason, he just didn't want to be President. Andrew Cuomo has also passed up opportunities to be a presidential candidate.

While Ross Perot seems to have had a personal animus towards the Bush family, its not clear that he would have not run his third party campaign with no Bush campaign. He did run a third party campaign in 1996, when Dole was the Republican nominee. And while people cite polls showing half the Perot voters would have voted for Clinton if Perot had not been in the race, I'm skeptical of these arguments. Polls held just after the election always have a higher proportion of people claiming to have voted for the winner than who actually voted for the winner. And about 90% of Perot's attacks were directed against Bush, and affected the dynamic of the campaign. So I'm not persuaded that Perot wouldn't have run anyway, and if he did stay out, it would have benefited the Republicans.

Dole was minority leader of the Senate at the time, and especially if he had beaten Quayle in the primaries would have escaped blame for the economic situation. In 1996 he was associated with the Republican Congress and facing an incumbent President during "good" economic times, and his age was an issue. In 1992 he would have been four years younger and the other factors wouldn't have applied. In 1992 Clinton won by a 5% popular vote margin and with 43% of the vote. I think Dole probably would have defeated Clinton in this scenario.

While I don't think Cuomo would have run, with no Bush victor of the second Gulf War running you would have had a stronger Democratic field to contest Clinton in the primaries, with both Gore and Gephardt likely candidates. Both ran for the Democratic nomination later, and Gore didn't really do that horribly in 1988.

GHW Bush was pretty old for a President in 1992, but then he still is alive today, he was just televised doing the coin flip at the Superbowl, and Americans just don't do one term presidencies anymore (the closest we have come recently was Johnson's refusal to run in 1968). So the premise of Bush not running again itself has problems.
 
OOC (entire comment):

I have some issues with this. First, Mario Cuomo could IOTL have run in either 1988 or 1992 and didn't, for reasons that still haven't been disclosed. I don't think Bush not running in 1992 would have changed this. For whatever reason, he just didn't want to be President. Andrew Cuomo has also passed up opportunities to be a presidential candidate.

OOC: A lot of prominent Democrats sat the '92 race out fearing Bush would be unbeatable after the success of the Gulf War. If Bush chooses to call it quits after one term, those top tear Democrats (Cuomo was one of them) are more likely to jump in the race and Clinton most likely doesn't become the nominee. As for 1988, that was a much more favorable year for the GOP than 92 so Cuomo sitting out 88 is a little more understandable than him sitting out an open race in 92.

While Ross Perot seems to have had a personal animus towards the Bush family, its not clear that he would have not run his third party campaign with no Bush campaign. He did run a third party campaign in 1996, when Dole was the Republican nominee. And while people cite polls showing half the Perot voters would have voted for Clinton if Perot had not been in the race, I'm skeptical of these arguments. Polls held just after the election always have a higher proportion of people claiming to have voted for the winner than who actually voted for the winner. And about 90% of Perot's attacks were directed against Bush, and affected the dynamic of the campaign. So I'm not persuaded that Perot wouldn't have run anyway, and if he did stay out, it would have benefited the Republicans.

Dole was minority leader of the Senate at the time, and especially if he had beaten Quayle in the primaries would have escaped blame for the economic situation. In 1996 he was associated with the Republican Congress and facing an incumbent President during "good" economic times, and his age was an issue. In 1992 he would have been four years younger and the other factors wouldn't have applied. In 1992 Clinton won by a 5% popular vote margin and with 43% of the vote. I think Dole probably would have defeated Clinton in this scenario.

While I don't think Cuomo would have run, with no Bush victor of the second Gulf War running you would have had a stronger Democratic field to contest Clinton in the primaries, with both Gore and Gephardt likely candidates. Both ran for the Democratic nomination later, and Gore didn't really do that horribly in 1988.

IMHO, Perot's first run was to hurt Bush and his second run in 96 was just for the sake of running. While I agree Bush staying out doesn't guarantee he doesn't run, it doesn't guarantee he does run either. As for Bush hurting Republicans more, Perot ran to Clinton's left on trade, was pro choice, supported raising taxes as a means to lower the debt, and supported some form of gun control, he doesn't sound like a candidate Republicans are going to be flocking to. Being the deficit hawk that he is though, I don't see him supporting a liberal like Cuomo and I can even see him begrudgingly backing Dole to stop him. The GOP would do better in TTL without Perot, and while Dole couldn't get blamed for the economy like Bush, it'll still hurt the GOP enough to cost them the election.

...Americans just don't do one term presidencies anymore (the closest we have come recently was Johnson's refusal to run in 1968). So the premise of Bush not running again itself has problems.
Bush actually did consider not running because of the reasons I gave in my original post, so it isn't impossible for him to sit it out.
 
Top