What if Ross Perot didn’t win the presidential election of 1996? He was elected as an independent and served from 1997-2005. He got us out of NAFTA, balances the budget, and reduced the national debt just to name a few of his accomplishments. He recently wrote in his Autobiography that he would have ran in 1992 if Bill Clinton had been nominated over Jerry Brown. If Clinton won the nomination, who would win in 1992? If Perot didn’t run in ‘96, who would have won? What other things would change without President Perot?

OOC: This was inspired by this thread: https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/ahc-bush-92-perot-96.457397/
 
I'd be wary about crediting too much of the budgetary reforms directly to Perot. Certainly his executive efforts were key I working out the trade agreements with Europe and Canada that allowed us to ditch Mexico and save slumping American wages in the manufacturing and agricultural sectors, which helped reduce the number of folks on the dole, but the actual legislation to reform the welfare system came out of Congressional action. When the major parties weren't worried about having their letter stamped on it, controversial legislation like raising the social security minimum age and making mothers who became single via a no fault divorse who ineligable for many public benefits if they didn't agree to equal custody and couldn't demonstrate abusive behavior on the part of their husband was actually possible
 
It's doubtful that Clinton would've won in 1992. His scandals couldn't even get him past the Democratic primaries, and if Perot is in the race he'll eat away at some of Clinton's support just as he took votes away from the Democrats in 1996. So either way Bush wins in 1992, albeit by a smaller margin than in 1988.
 
Well, that would mean no President Trump to ride on the success of the Reform Party. I mean, the Reformers had basically become the party of fringe lunatics by the 2010's and there would be no other way that Trump could win without a political platform like that.
 
I'd be wary about crediting too much of the budgetary reforms directly to Perot. Certainly his executive efforts were key I working out the trade agreements with Europe and Canada that allowed us to ditch Mexico and save slumping American wages in the manufacturing and agricultural sectors, which helped reduce the number of folks on the dole, but the actual legislation to reform the welfare system came out of Congressional action.
How could you not credit Perot with reducing the debt? Bush increased the debt, and economists found Gore’s proposed plans in ‘96 would have also increased the debt. I agree with the executive orders part, but don’t forget that he was able to get a lot of his agenda through by speaking to the American people directly.
The welfare reform was mainly from congress, but I’d argue it was a biproduct of the push for a balanced budget.
 
Well, that would mean no President Trump to ride on the success of the Reform Party. I mean, the Reformers had basically become the party of fringe lunatics by the 2010's and there would be no other way that Trump could win without a political platform like that.
Not to mention that this resulted in beginning of successful minor parties.by 2008, Green party, Libertarian party, even constitution party has seats in Congress.
 
Well, that would mean no President Trump to ride on the success of the Reform Party. I mean, the Reformers had basically become the party of fringe lunatics by the 2010's and there would be no other way that Trump could win without a political platform like that.
If Kerry didn’t win in 2004 we wouldn’t have had 8 years of Pat Buchanan. He tarnished the reform party’s reputation. Trump having been a former Reform Party Member who rejoined the Republicans after Buchanan’s election helped him win in 2016. The reform party was very successful from 1996-2008, but Buchanan seems to have lead it to the slaughter house .
 
How could you not credit Perot with reducing the debt? Bush increased the debt, and economists found Gore’s proposed plans in ‘96 would have also increased the debt. I agree with the executive orders part, but don’t forget that he was able to get a lot of his agenda through by speaking to the American people directly.
The welfare reform was mainly from congress, but I’d argue it was a biproduct of the push for a balanced budget.

As George Martin wrote, "What the King dreams, the Hand builds". I'm not saying Perot dident provide the impetus for serious Congressional action to get to a balanced budget, but crediting him for actually accomplishing the change in the kind of hero-worship so many people do is, from where I stand, grossly misguided. The crafting of the actual mechanisms weren't proposed by Perot and he was barely involved in the drafting of the bills: that was the hard work of the House Finance Comitee
 
As George Martin wrote, "What the King dreams, the Hand builds". I'm not saying Perot dident provide the impetus for serious Congressional action to get to a balanced budget, but crediting him for actually accomplishing the change in the kind of hero-worship
Ok fair enough. I just see too many people saying that he did nothing and that all his accomplishments would have still happened if Gore won.
 
If Kerry didn’t win in 2004 we wouldn’t have had 8 years of Pat Buchanan. He tarnished the reform party’s reputation. Trump having been a former Reform Party Member who rejoined the Republicans after Buchanan’s election helped him win in 2016. The reform party was very successful from 1996-2008, but Buchanan seems to have lead it to the slaughter house .
Would Buchanan have run for President if he was not elected to the US House of Reps in 1996? I believe that he defeated a Democrat named Virgil whatshisface?

Nevertheless, his nativist/protectionist speeches on C-SPAN before the empty chamber of the House were responsible for jacking up Reform Party membership. He played very well in the South and when the crazies realized that the GOP offered them Jeb Bush, George Pataki and Orrin Hatch, they joined the Buchanan Brigades. And it was Buchanan's speeches that led Steve King from Iowa to join Reform.
 
Ok fair enough. I just see too many people saying that he did nothing and that all his accomplishments would have still happened if Gore won.

Oh,I'll readily admit Gore's agenda woulden't have resulted in a balanced budget, though I do think there's a solid chance he'd pursue some of the trade reforms as part of his stated desires to encouraged a greater enforcement of labor and environmental laws (By raising trade barriers and implimenting sanctions against nations who violate their pledges). But the political perception alot of folks abroad seem to have about our system post-Perot, where the President somehow is the font of all policy and Congress is a set of faceless clerks beneath his dominating personality, is grossly inaccurate. Its a result of the political style he defined of going right to the people with his speechs and encouraging his supporters to go out and actively protest their represenatives if they diden't fall in line, which while it certainly raised your average American's political awareness and partipation did make it hard for Congress to prioritize what issues need to be tackled first. from what's most immediate to what gets an emotional rise out of people, and has kind of destroyed trust in our courts. I mean, look at the last series of surveys that shows the public is more likely to beleive an lawyers advocating for corperation on taxes are more likely to objectively interprest the law than the Supreme Court!
 
Would Buchanan have run for President if he was not elected to the US House of Reps in 1996? I believe that he defeated a Democrat named Virgil whatshisface?
Probably. Before Buchanan was elected, Buchanan tried to Primary Bush. So even if he lost, he could still try to run.
He played very well in the South and when the crazies realized that the GOP offered them Jeb Bush, George Pataki and Orrin Hatch, they joined the Buchanan Brigades.
Buchanan barley won in 2008 though. It was only the Deep South that went for Buchanan. States like Texas, Florida, Virginia, etc. still voted for McCain and Jeb in 2008 and 2012 respectively. His ability to get many in the White working class also helped him win enough electoral votes outside of the south to axfually win the White House.
But the political perception alot of folks abroad seem to have about our system post-Perot, where the President somehow is the font of all policy and Congress is a set of faceless clerks beneath his dominating personality, is grossly inaccurate. Its a result of the political style he defined of going right to the people with his speechs and encouraging his supporters to go out and actively protest their represenatives if they diden't fall in line
Oh yea. I mean look at how the democrats and republicans were able to cooperate to oppose much of Buchanan’s presidency. It was only on his more moderate points where people wanted their representatives to actually work with him.
 
Nevertheless, his nativist/protectionist speeches on C-SPAN before the empty chamber of the House were responsible for jacking up Reform Party membership. He played very well in the South and when the crazies realized that the GOP offered them Jeb Bush, George Pataki and Orrin Hatch, they joined the Buchanan Brigades. And it was Buchanan's speeches that led Steve King from Iowa to join Reform
Don’t even get me on his race baiting. He was so terrible even his supporters decided to nominate McMullin instead of who he endorsed... At least in 2016 you had Trump and Edwards who were both arm in arm in hating Buchanan.
 
Top