They will go badly for the Republicans. Only in unusual circumstances does the party controlling the White House not lose a substantial number of House and/or Senate seats in a midterm election (1962 because of the Cuban Missile Crisis providing a boost to JFK's ratings; 1998 because of the GOP's determination to impeach Clinton; 2002 because of 9/11).
BTW, I once suggested this was the only way Mario Cuomo could get re-elected in 1994 and be a plausible presidential candidate for 1996...
So which races do you see going differently in 1994?
In the House, practically any close Republican victory could be flipped. Just in Washington state, the Democrats could have kept six districts that they lost (all by less than 9.5 points and three by less than three points). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1994
In the Senate, at the very least I would expect Harris Wofford to defeat Rick Santorum in PA. I also doubt that the Republicans would have won in in MI and MN. The Democrats might well have defeated Jeffords in VT. And Sasser might have been able to hold his seat in TN.
Democratic governors who might have been re-elected include Jim Folsom of AL, Mario Cuomo of NY and Anne Richards of TX. Mark Singel (D) might well have defeated Tom Ridge (R) in PA. The Democrats would also have a good chance of wining the gubernatorial races in RI and SC.
Also, some Republicans who won easily in OTL because they did not face any serious Democratic challenge--the Democrats being too busy defending their own vulnerable incumbents--might face such a challenge here.
Nice, you just killed Rick Santorum's career.In the House, practically any close Republican victory could be flipped. Just in Washington state, the Democrats could have kept six districts that they lost (all by less than 9.5 points and three by less than three points). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1994
In the Senate, at the very least I would expect Harris Wofford to defeat Rick Santorum in PA. I also doubt that the Republicans would have won in in MI and MN. The Democrats might well have defeated Jeffords in VT. And Sasser might have been able to hold his seat in TN.
Democratic governors who might have been re-elected include Jim Folsom of AL, Mario Cuomo of NY and Anne Richards of TX. Mark Singel (D) might well have defeated Tom Ridge (R) in PA. The Democrats would also have a good chance of wining the gubernatorial races in RI and SC.
Also, some Republicans who won easily in OTL because they did not face any serious Democratic challenge--the Democrats being too busy defending their own vulnerable incumbents--might face such a challenge here.
Literally nothing wrong with that.Nice, you just killed Rick Santorum's career.
Is Bush keeping to his no new taxes pledge enough to get him to win?
Or does that kind of thinking overvalue the Republican base and Republican unity for shaping the outcome of the general election?
Would Bush resisting all things Republicans would call taxes result in a massive budget crisis or government shutdown?
Or maybe as simple as Perot not running?The OP seems to assume that everything else about the US--including all the non-presidential races--stays the same as in OTL.
Therefore I can only assume that Bush won because of some Clinton scandal worse than those the voters of OTL knew about in 1992. If it were anything other than a personal victory, other races would be affected too.
Or maybe as simple as Perot not running?
They will go badly for the Republicans. Only in unusual circumstances does the party controlling the White House not lose a substantial number of House and/or Senate seats in a midterm election (1962 because of the Cuban Missile Crisis providing a boost to JFK's ratings; 1998 because of the GOP's determination to impeach Clinton; 2002 because of 9/11).
Republicans still win, but by lesser margins. 1994 was more about generational turnover than your average election, and this would still hold true.
Or maybe as simple as Perot not running?
Except this is also around the time when a lot of Southern Democrats were getting called out for taking Conservative and voting Liberal. I think the Dems still lose some seats in the South. Whether that's countered by Dem gains elsewhere, I don't knowYou're not going to see generational turnover in favour of the party that has held the White House for 14 years. In the absence of a Democratic President for Republicans to mobilise against, they are not going anywhere.
IIRC though, those exit polls, etc were all from after Perot entered the race, did well, dropped out then reentered. If he had never run in the first place, is what I was suggesting. Then you might have seen Bush pull off a winThere is strong evidence from exit polls and elsewhere that Clinton would still have won: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/Bg6Kn8QPRQQ/QAs0-TLzQV0J
http://www.salon.com/2011/04/04/third_party_myth_easterbrook/