In hindsight: would you rather have Bush Sr. win in 1992 or Bush Jr. in 2001?

Better scenario?

  • Bush Sr. win in 1992, Bush Jr. doesn't become President in 2000

    Votes: 95 95.0%
  • Bush Sr. loses in 1992, Bush Jr. becomes President in 2000 (actual)

    Votes: 5 5.0%

  • Total voters
    100
But on the other hand, Blue Dog Democrats exist.

HW would not have deregulated IMO not because he would be unable to, but because he'd focus more on foreign policy.
He still would've focused on Domestic policy much more than he did in his single term OTL, as his lack of focus on domestic policy and the economy did cost him a second term OTL and would've made his re election TTL a very tough fought race, and without the backlash against Clinton in 1993-94 OTL, the Blue Dogs probably would've stayed more Democratic in the 1990s, many of them were very populist in their economic outlook (many blue dogs opposed NAFTA), so they may not have bought into the deregulation attempts of a Second Bush term for the sake of keeping the playing field level.
 
I used the term "deregulatory" to describe the political consensus of that period. The era when the political discourse shunned liberalism and where even Democrats-as represented by Clinton-conceded that in principle the role of the state should be constrained. You could argue that Clinton played a key role in making that ideology bipartisan. But given the way in which the previous Democratic losses were blamed on excessive liberalism in the public imagination and within the party itself I suspect whoever came after Bush Sr. would have Bill Clinton's attitude towards liberalism at least.

Indeed Clinton's loss could convince prominent actors within the Democratic Party that Clinton was too liberal with his defeat being blamed on the populist elements his campaign and his relative social liberalism. Meaning whoever is nominated in 1996 is even more conservative than Clinton was.
 
Indeed Clinton's loss could convince prominent actors within the Democratic Party that Clinton was too liberal with his defeat being blamed on the populist elements his campaign and his relative social liberalism. Meaning whoever is nominated in 1996 is even more conservative than Clinton was.

I think Clinton's personal baggage would be blamed for his loss, as this is the only way I can see him losing. If that isn't blamed, the Democratic party is more likely to blame his support of NAFTA and his being "tough on crime" than any liberal or populist positions of his.
 
I used the term "deregulatory" to describe the political consensus of that period. The era when the political discourse shunned liberalism and where even Democrats-as represented by Clinton-conceded that in principle the role of the state should be constrained. You could argue that Clinton played a key role in making that ideology bipartisan. But given the way in which the previous Democratic losses were blamed on excessive liberalism in the public imagination and within the party itself I suspect whoever came after Bush Sr. would have Bill Clinton's attitude towards liberalism at least.

Indeed Clinton's loss could convince prominent actors within the Democratic Party that Clinton was too liberal with his defeat being blamed on the populist elements his campaign and his relative social liberalism. Meaning whoever is nominated in 1996 is even more conservative than Clinton was.

If history shows us anything, it is that in a two-party system like the US if a party loses it does not move to be MORE like the opponent, it moves away from center. Clinton's "third way" and moderate views would be blamed, positions like "safe, legal, but rare" on abortion would be said to not have been liberal enough.
 
Except that was not the assumption prominent Democrats made with each loss after 1972. McGovern, Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis were all said to have lost-or lost so convincingly-because they were too liberal. For that reason most of the serious candidates for the 1992 nomination ran as relatively conservative candidates. Tsongas was more conservative than Clinton was on fiscal issues.

You can say that categorization is unfair-and to a point I'd agree. Carter contrary to his image was not that liberal in the political context of the 1970's. Dukakis ran as a post-partisan technocrat rather than a true liberal in the Kennedy 1980 vein.

But given how the party reacted in 1992 the conclusion that the party was too liberal must have stuck. Otherwise candidates like Clinton and Tsongas would not have been as successful as they were.

Throughout this period the Democratic Party had the opposite reaction to loss as the Republicans. I'm not sure defeating Clinton would stop the ascendency of that viewpoint in the party.
 
Except that was not the assumption prominent Democrats made with each loss after 1972. McGovern, Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis were all said to have lost-or lost so convincingly-because they were too liberal. For that reason most of the serious candidates for the 1992 nomination ran as relatively conservative candidates. Tsongas was more conservative than Clinton was on fiscal issues.

You can say that categorization is unfair-and to a point I'd agree. Carter contrary to his image was not that liberal in the political context of the 1970's. Dukakis ran as a post-partisan technocrat rather than a true liberal in the Kennedy 1980 vein.

But given how the party reacted in 1992 the conclusion that the party was too liberal must have stuck. Otherwise candidates like Clinton and Tsongas would not have been as successful as they were.

Throughout this period the Democratic Party had the opposite reaction to loss as the Republicans. I'm not sure defeating Clinton would stop the ascendency of that viewpoint in the party.

I disagree. In Dukakis' case, though he was fiscally moderate, he was perceived as a liberal. No one is gonna perceive Bill Clinton, who touted his moderation as a "departure from tax-and-spend" and his execution of mentally ill people, as a liberal. So, in 1996, maybe someone like Mario Cuomo or Dick Gephardt is the nominee.
 
But perception is what I'm talking about. True Dukakis was perceived to be more liberal than he was during the election and Clinton wasn't.

But I am skeptical that voices who wanted a more conservative Democratic Party wouldn't at least attempt to rewrite the history of Clinton's loss to make him seem more liberal than he was particularly on cultural issues.

I tend to think the evidence of 1988 and 1992 indicates Cuomo was never actually going to run.

The larger idea is that beginning in the late 1970's the political discourse that established the limits of political discussion was a conservative one that marginalized liberals and liberalism. The perceived failures of George W. Bush presidency brought that era to an end or at least began the process of ending the dominance of that discourse.
 
Ann Richards is the likely frontrunner/nominee for the Dem nomination in 1996, as I'd wage it likely that W. either doesn't run or is defeated by her in 1994 Texas gubernatorial
 
Ann Richards is the likely frontrunner/nominee for the Dem nomination in 1996, as I'd wage it likely that W. either doesn't run or is defeated by her in 1994 Texas gubernatorial

I want to live in a world where President Ann Richards happened
 
Top