DBWI: No Ross Perot in 1992

As we all know it was the second US presidential election where no candidate achieved EC majority.
So what if it Perot either didn't run or withdrew from the race?
 
I think that Bush would have won re-election. The rise of an anti-estlishment canadite provoked an even deeper hostility towards Washington DC and the Beltway Establishment, which Bush was a part of. It's a shame that Jerry Brown wound up getting the Presidenency. He blew a whole in the budget, vacilated on the world stage just when the world needed America to secure the post-Cold War peace, and tore apart NAFTA like it was confetti.
 
It would have butterflied way Ann Richards' presidency, the first Democratic president from the party's liberal wing since Lyndon Johnson who saw a period of relative prosperity and left office with a trillion dollar surplus, thus vindicating liberalism.

I think that Bush would have won re-election. The rise of an anti-estlishment canadite provoked an even deeper hostility towards Washington DC and the Beltway Establishment, which Bush was a part of. It's a shame that Jerry Brown wound up getting the Presidenency. He blew a whole in the budget, vacilated on the world stage just when the world needed America to secure the post-Cold War peace, and tore apart NAFTA like it was confetti.

NAFTA was a bad deal. Plus remember that Ronald Reagan was president deficit who spent hundreds of billions of dollars every year and nearly doubled the national debt in spite of running a campaign on small government.
 
I suppose there'd be no Freedom Party, so America stays with a two-party system. This might be better in some ways- I think with two parties able to form straightforward compromises, there'd be a lot less gridlock.

I do wonder how Britain would be affected. Major's terrible relations with Perot were a big reason for the Tory split which brought him down in '95. OTOH he was pretty much dead in the water from 1993, so it'll probably just be a stay of execution.
 
I suppose there'd be no Freedom Party, so America stays with a two-party system. This might be better in some ways- I think with two parties able to form straightforward compromises, there'd be a lot less gridlock.

I do wonder how Britain would be affected. Major's terrible relations with Perot were a big reason for the Tory split which brought him down in '95. OTOH he was pretty much dead in the water from 1993, so it'll probably just be a stay of execution.
I don't think the United Kingdom wouldn't have collapsed like it did. Wales and Scotland wouldn't be independent, and Northern Ireland would have never unified with the Republic of Ireland.
 
I think that Bush would have won re-election. The rise of an anti-estlishment canadite provoked an even deeper hostility towards Washington DC and the Beltway Establishment, which Bush was a part of.

I'm not sure. Bush's approvals were plummeting even before Perot. It would have been close, but it's far from certain if Bush would have won.
 
I think Clinton would have won. He got the popular vote anyway and IIRC polls showed Perot voters coming equally from both parties. Perot himself probably appealed more to conservatives than to liberals, but having Jerry Brown on the ticket had to have attracted a lot of Democrats. Doubt Clinton would have lasted long though, with the Whitewater scandal. Even if he had lasted a full term, it would be a definite Republican victory in 1996.

However, I think it would've been for the best if Bush won. If it wasn't for that gun legislation, Stormfront never would have existed.
 
Top