Impact on US history if Bush I won in 1992?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

Say that Perot doesn't run or something and Bush I squeaks by with a narrow win over Clinton in 1992, how would his last 4 years play out, what would happen with the Democratic party and Bill Clinton, and what happens to the evolution of the nation and politics? Does the GOP regain the House in 1994?
 
Say that Perot doesn't run or something and Bush I squeaks by with a narrow win over Clinton in 1992, how would his last 4 years play out, what would happen with the Democratic party and Bill Clinton, and what happens to the evolution of the nation and politics? Does the GOP regain the House in 1994?

For the House in 1994, I doubt it. The Dems probably keep the House narrowly, the Contract with America is averted since Gingrich never has the platform to put it forth, Bill Clinton (and likewise Hillary Rodham, who goes right back to using her maiden name after the election) fades away, and people get sick of the GOP in the White House in 1996. Assuming whatever Democrat runs in '96 is victorious in 2000, the Iraq invasion is averted due to no Bush II presidency. However, the economic collapse devastates the Democrats in 2008, leading to John McCain getting elected (and probably re-elected.)

The circumstances that gave us Obama never happen, he ends up staying in the Senate, and really, beyond McCain, the deck is completely shuffled for both parties. The good news? Trump doesn't gain any traction and is regarded as the GOP equipment of a joke candidate.
 

Deleted member 1487

For the House in 1994, I doubt it. The Dems probably keep the House narrowly, the Contract with America is averted since Gingrich never has the platform to put it forth, Bill Clinton (and likewise Hillary Rodham, who goes right back to using her maiden name after the election) fades away, and people get sick of the GOP in the White House in 1996. Assuming whatever Democrat runs in '96 is victorious in 2000, the Iraq invasion is averted due to no Bush II presidency. However, the economic collapse devastates the Democrats in 2008, leading to John McCain getting elected (and probably re-elected.)

The circumstances that gave us Obama never happen, he ends up staying in the Senate, and really, beyond McCain, the deck is completely shuffled for both parties. The good news? Trump doesn't gain any traction and is regarded as the GOP equipment of a joke candidate.
I'm not sure if there would be a collapse of the sort we had in 2008 without a Bush II presidency; there was a lot of policies he put in place that most Democrats wouldn't. Also after a potential Democratic presidency in 1997-2005 there might be a GOP presidency from 2005. Plus there might not even be 9/11 and the Global War on Terror, the Bush tax cuts, or the Iraq invasion. Of course the Dems could well get the blame for the Dot Com bubble bursting in 2000. The Contract with America might pop up in the 1998 mid-terms after a Democratic president wins in 1996. McCain might not run for the presidency at all due to butterflies.
 
I'm not sure if there would be a collapse of the sort we had in 2008 without a Bush II presidency; there was a lot of policies he put in place that most Democrats wouldn't. Also after a potential Democratic presidency in 1997-2005 there might be a GOP presidency from 2005. Plus there might not even be 9/11 and the Global War on Terror, the Bush tax cuts, or the Iraq invasion. Of course the Dems could well get the blame for the Dot Com bubble bursting in 2000. The Contract with America might pop up in the 1998 mid-terms after a Democratic president wins in 1996. McCain might not run for the presidency at all due to butterflies.

Maybe not but he always seemed like the President who almost was. So he's kind of the low-hanging fruit for the GOP. Also, while it may be possible to soften the crisis in 2008, averting it altogether may be a challenge since businesses will still do shady stuff no matter who's President.
 

Deleted member 1487

Maybe not but he always seemed like the President who almost was. So he's kind of the low-hanging fruit for the GOP. Also, while it may be possible to soften the crisis in 2008, averting it altogether may be a challenge since businesses will still do shady stuff no matter who's President.
Business certainly does shady stuff, but the issue was the tax cuts, lax SEC and other regulatory oversight, efforts to pump up the housing market, GOP efforts to stimulate consumption among the public after 9/11, etc. that really made it a perfect storm. That is not to say the Democratic party wouldn't have a candidate of the DLC that would be as lax on enforcement issues and give in to bankers, but I doubt they'd cut taxes like Bush did and cause a glut of investment money desperate for a return.
 
Business certainly does shady stuff, but the issue was the tax cuts, lax SEC and other regulatory oversight, efforts to pump up the housing market, GOP efforts to stimulate consumption among the public after 9/11, etc. that really made it a perfect storm. That is not to say the Democratic party wouldn't have a candidate of the DLC that would be as lax on enforcement issues and give in to bankers, but I doubt they'd cut taxes like Bush did and cause a glut of investment money desperate for a return.

Like I said, it would soften it to maybe early 90s levels but not avert it altogether. Enough for people to want a different party in power but not enough for an Obama-type realignment, however temporary that ended up being.
 
I'm not sure if there would be a collapse of the sort we had in 2008 without a Bush II presidency; there was a lot of policies he put in place that most Democrats wouldn't. Also after a potential Democratic presidency in 1997-2005 there might be a GOP presidency from 2005. Plus there might not even be 9/11 and the Global War on Terror, the Bush tax cuts, or the Iraq invasion. Of course the Dems could well get the blame for the Dot Com bubble bursting in 2000. The Contract with America might pop up in the 1998 mid-terms after a Democratic president wins in 1996. McCain might not run for the presidency at all due to butterflies.

I am inclining to this post. Which democratic would most likely get the 1997-2005 presidency and which republican after him (considering its probably still too early for a her)? Could Al Gore work?
 

Deleted member 1487

I am inclining to this post. Which democratic would most likely get the 1997-2005 presidency and which republican after him (considering its probably still too early for a her)? Could Al Gore work?
Al Gore was another DLC-er so I could see him making a move. There were so many potential Dems that it is really hard to say. I'd think Bob Dole might run after HW Bush. I highly doubt W Bush would run immediately after his father, but would run in 2004.
 

The housing crisis is still going to happen. Alan Greenspan is still going to be in charge of the Fed for more or less the same period as OTL and Glass Steagall is still going to get repealed. Both were bipartisan consensus.

At its core it was about steadily rising home prices that created the illusion that people would always be able to refinance coupled with easy credit, which wasn't primarily because of the Bush tax cuts but because of a global glut of easy money that started well before he was President. Greenspan, the EU, and Britain both had easy interest rate policies; the last two ended up having crashes in housing much the same as we did. There was also a lot of money coming back from Asia because of surging growth there and from oil-producing countries because of raised prices (even if this somehow butterflies Bin Laden, Iraq, and the associated headaches, gas prices will still rise because of demand from Asia and a surging global economy in the 1990s, so that's still happening). All of that created a lot of money that was just lying around, making for easy credit.

These things are unlikely to be effected by Dubya not being POTUS. The bubble was already starting by the 1990s when Clinton was in charge; housing on the West Coast (which was one of the hardest hit areas when the bubble popped) was already going by 10% a year by 1998 and mortgage fraud started skyrocketing starting in 1997. That's a pretty good indicator for about when the bubble started
 
Four presidential election victory in a row would really cement the "Reagan revolution", but that happened anyway. And Bush would not have much of a mandate he he somehow managed to win even with Perot (he only needed a 3% swing to win the nationwide popular vote) on a low plurality, with Democratic gains in Congress.

George W Bush is not elected Governor of Texas in 1994. He is still working in his father's administration, and anyway that election is a Democratic year.

Al Gore would look on paper that he would be the likely Democratic candidate in 1996, but Vice Presidential candidates on losing tickets historically have gotten very little traction in regards to getting the presidential nomination later. The only ones who have pulled this off were Franklin Roosevelt, Mondale, and Dole. And Gore's Senate seat comes up for election in 1996.

The Democrats could decide that the whole DLC experiment was a failure and nominate Mario Cuomo in 1996. Since 1994 is not a Republican year, he winds up winning re-election as Governor of New York. But I suspect he really didn't want to become President. Of other potential candidates, the Senate seats of Bill Bradley (runner up in 2000) and John Kerry (nominee in 2004) are also up for election in 1996, though IOTL Bradley didn't run for re-election. Dick Gephardt has a very good chance of becoming Speaker of the House, and politicians in that position usually don't run for president.
 
Assuming Blackmun and White still retire a far more conservative SCOTUS.

I think Bush probably would have been sensible enough to send an armored company to Somalia as well. The Battle of Mogadishu and our subsequent withdrawal helped convinced a lot of radical Islamists that the U.S. could be defeated. Most of them thought Bin Laden was crazy before that. If that gets butterflied it has serious implications.

No Monica scandal is nice. If this butterflies that and Bush vs. Gore (either can win, but clearly with no judicial involvement or recount), the Iraq War, and torture/extraordinary rendition you will likely see significant pop culture differences. Those things seriously undermined confidence in a lot of American institutions and IMHO led to depictions of conspiracies among the powerful becoming much more popular (House of Cards is a good example). Those things will probably be a lot less prominent in ATL. Dixie Chicks stay a force in country music probably.

The obvious pop culture implications would be that Black Hawk Down never gets made and any movie about the Iraq War is butterflied.

I wonder what HW would do in Clinton's shoes with North Korea.
 
I suspect you'd need a POD other than Perot dropping out for this - exit polling suggests he drew equally from both parties (so remove Perot and Clinton wins by the same margin)
 
Say that Perot doesn't run or something and Bush I squeaks by with a narrow win over Clinton in 1992, how would his last 4 years play out, what would happen with the Democratic party and Bill Clinton, and what happens to the evolution of the nation and politics? Does the GOP regain the House in 1994?
This is a great POD.

The Dems were suffering from an image problem as they kept losing elections. They got lucky with Clinton...Clinton got lucky. He was a controversy-embroiled Arkansas Senator. I wonder what that means for 96, as certainly there would be a real tiring with the Repub brand by then.

Perhaps President Bill Bradley would be in order.
 

Deleted member 1487

I suspect you'd need a POD other than Perot dropping out for this - exit polling suggests he drew equally from both parties (so remove Perot and Clinton wins by the same margin)
Without Perot as a novelty act sucking up media attention there might a lot more focus on the Clinton sex scandals in Arkansas and cost him enough to lose the election in a 1 on 1 matchup.
 
Without Perot as a novelty act sucking up media attention there might a lot more focus on the Clinton sex scandals in Arkansas and cost him enough to lose the election in a 1 on 1 matchup.
I mean, 2016 has shown the media has no problem diving into the issues of two candidates at once. (More seriously the scandals escalating would probably be enough to bring Bill Clinton down.)
 

Deleted member 1487

I mean, 2016 has shown the media has no problem diving into the issues of two candidates at once. (More seriously the scandals escalating would probably be enough to bring Bill Clinton down.)
The media environment is radically different in 2016 than in 1992; in fact a lot of what the media does today was unthinkable then.
 
Top