Independent: The Election and Presidency of President H. Ross Perot

This is my third timeline attempt, and hopefully, it works out well. If anyone has any comments, complaints, or questions, feel free to say so, and enjoy! I'll update later. Enjoy!

=========================


INDEPENDENT






The Election and Presidency of
President H. Ross Perot










by




DUDEALMIGHTY947






































New York Times Editorial – June 15, 1992


WHO WILL BE OUR PRESIDENT NEXT JANUARY?


“That is the question we continually ask ourselves, as the presidential campaign this year goes on. In the primaries, it's pretty much been decided: President George Bush, being the incumbent, won all of the Republican primaries and 72.84% of the vote for the Republican nomination. Meanwhile, the Democrats, seeking to unseat the president, has seen Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton sweep 39 of the 50 primaries, the other eleven going for other minor candidates. Most likely, we will see President Bush and Governor Clinton fighting for the presidency this November. Yet still, there is one obstacle both candidates must overcome.


Last February, billionaire and president of IBM Henry Ross Perot, best known as Ross Perot or H. Ross Perot, announced that, if his supporters could get his name on the ballot in all fifty states, he would run for president as an Independent. Luckily for him, he has many supporters, who managed to do just that. Mr. Perot formally announced his candidacy in April. And, not too long ago, Mr. Perot announced that his running mate was to be the former Vice Admiral in the United States Navy and hero of the Vietnam War, James Stockdale, residing in California. This further boosted his popularity among registered voters. Thus, the polls stand at a surprising stance: 39% of those polled are in favor of Perot's candidacy, while 31% are in favor of President Bush and 25% are in favor of Governor Clinton. Needless to say, this is extremely historic, due to the fact that Mr. Perot is not a Republican nor a Democrat.


Of course, there are three levels of affection that Perot's candidacy will have on this election.


First of all, Perot is mainly popular among former Bush voters. Although Perot is attracting many Democratic voters, Perot is mainly attracting Bush voters, and if he takes most of them, that will give Governor Clinton the popular vote and, most likely, the presidency. Most likely, if his candidacy only did this to the Bush campaign, the Independent ticket would only win small states, probably ones it has been in the lead in the longest, such as Maine and Kansas.



Second, Perot might have a candidacy that will win electoral votes. By this, I mean he wins as many states as a regular, Democrat or Republican candidacy would receive. This would definitely throw the election to Congress, as it does whenever no candidate receives the 270 electoral vote majority. It's impossible to say if the Democrats will keep the house or if the Republicans will take it, but most likely, the House of Representatives would vote on a president-elect sometime in late November or December, and due to the Democratic majority, that would mean Governor Bill Clinton would most likely be elected our 42nd President.



Third, Perot may attract more votes as he campaigns, and if he struggles hard, he may win the 270 majority or more, and Perot may win the presidency without the dilemma of a Congressional vote. This, of course, would be truly historic.


It's impossible to say which of these paths will occur, but all three ways will determine the future of our nation in ways radically different from the others.”


- The New York Times, June 15 1992



The campaign was going really well for Mr. Perot. Of course, there was the famous poll in early July that showed Perot ahead of both George Bush and Bill Clinton, with 41% approving of Perot, 31% approving of Bill Clinton, and 28% approving George Bush. I admit that, for a long time, it seemed certain Perot would be elected president of the United States. Then, the Democratic National Convention rolled around, and that's when the Democrats became more popular.”



    • The Most Remarkable Years: Memoirs of a White House Chief of Staff by Clay Mulford


“I was raised to believe the American Dream was built on rewarding hard work. But we have seen the folks of Washington turn the American ethic on its head. For too long those who play by the rules and keep the faith have gotten the shaft, and those who cut corners and cut deals have been rewarded. People are working harder than ever, spending less time with their children, working nights and weekends at their jobs instead of going to PTA and Little League or Scouts. And their incomes are still going down. Their taxes are still going up. And the costs of health care, housing and education are going through the roof. Meanwhile, more and more of our best people are falling into poverty even though they work 40 hours a week. Our people are pleading for change, but government is in the way. It has been hijacked by privileged private interests. It has forgotten who really pays the bills around here. It has taken more of your money and given you less in return. We have got to go beyond the brain-dead politics in Washington and give our people the kind of government they deserve, a government that works for them. A President, a president, ought to be a powerful force for progress. But right now I know how President Lincoln felt when General McClellan wouldn’t attack in the Civil War. He asked him, 'If you’re not going to use your army, may I borrow it?' And so I say: George Bush, if you won’t use our power to help America, step aside. I will.







    • Governor Bill Clinton (D-AR) Accepting the Democratic National Convention, 1992


1992 Democratic Nominee for President: Governor William Jefferson “Bill” Clinton (D-AR)
1992 Democratic Nominee for Vice President: Senator Al Gore (D-TN)


(Writer's Note: This is an actual excerpt from Clinton's nomination acceptance)


Presidential Poll July 21, 1992
Who Will You Vote for this November?


Bill Clinton (D) - 36%
Ross Perot (I) - 35%
George Bush (R) - 28%
Other – 1%


After the Democratic convention ended, our lead had diminished somewhat. The convention had been really thought-out, and the Democrats had made it look like it was a party for the people, so naturally, he gained in the polls. Still, we were neck-to-neck with Bill Clinton. We looked at individual states towards the end of July to see which states to focus on. In New York, we were in a near third, just below George Bush and about five points below Bill Clinton; in Ohio, we were ahead of Clinton and Bush by a three-point margin; and in California, we were tied with Bill Clinton exactly at 38.5% to 38.5%, with George Bush placing a far-off 23%. Ross correctly predicted that the election would probably depend on either Ohio or California. We started campagning more and more in those states, and it seemed to sort of pay off. I think Perot just had an air about him that just made him very likeable, and that's why people voted for him.”



    • The Most Remarkable Years: Memoirs of a White House Chief of Staff by Clay Mulford


The president was getting very worried before the Republican convention. He wasn't worried about not being nominated; that was assured. He was worried about his trailing Clinton and Perot in the polls by around a 7% margin. That was scary. If we didn't make up that trail, we would be assured a defeat in November. So, we knew we had to make the best we could out of the convention.”



    • Managing the Bush Campaign by Frederic Malek




The New York Times September 17, 1992


RNC OPENS!


PRESIDENTIAL BALLOT AT RNC '92


Pres. George Bush – 2165
Pat Buchanan – 20


VICE PRESIDENTIAL BALLOT


Vice Pres. Dan Quayle – Renominated by Voice Vote


Ladies and gentlemen, the distinguished president of the United States is the man to vote for. The president has shown courage during the Gulf War, experience as vice president under my administration, and selflessness in his presidency so far. Let me tell you; President Bush, as my vice president, was a great man, seeking only to further his service to our great nation. Mr. Clinton has not shown a bit of that courage and selflessness, instead running on a platform wrongly accusing our president as mishandling our recent war and accusing him of wrongdoings. Meanwhile, a businessman is running against the president, trying selfishly to win the presidency for himself, for selfish reasons. Here's the truth, folks: He's just another businessman wanting your tax money to pay for his own salary. Let's give the president a round of applause, and re-elect him on the Third of November.”



    • Keynote Address by Former President Ronald Reagan, August 18, 1992


Presidential Poll August 22, 1992
With the Recent Republican convention, who will you vote for this November?


Bill Clinton (D) – 34%
Ross Perot (I) – 33%
George Bush (R) - 33%


After the August 22 poll, we knew that it was going to be tough trying to win the presidency. We were tied with President Bush, and Perot told me immediately: 'I am not going to place third. Not after I held a lead for a while.' The campaigning went well, but we knew we had to take advantage of something else – and that something was the debates. Perot spent a lot of time practicing for the debates, and it really proved helpful toward his campaign.”




    • The Most Remarkable Years: Memoirs of a White House Chief of Staff by Clay Mulford

ross_perot.jpg

Ross Perot at a Campaign Rally, September 14, 1992



FAMOUS TRANSCRIPT OF THE FIRST PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE OF 1992
OCTOBER 11, 1992


JIM LEHRER: Mr. Perot, President Bush has just accused you of inexperience in running the economy. How do you respond to the president on these charges? You have one minute.


ROSS PEROT: Well, Mr. President, I understand – I have no experience in running a nation. I wasn't a congressman, a governor, or senator. I am a businessman – I am the owner of a big company, that is making billions of dollars. Does that not tell you how I handle my money? And look at the nation's deficit right now. We are now in debt, when we shouldn't be. While I have owned this company for a long time, you have been a congressman – which has no experience in running a national deficit – and you have been the vice president of an administration that has started this near-recession. No, we need change in America, and if the president is going to accuse me of experience, I'll just point to his record. You have no way of saying that you have run a good business, while I do.


After the debates, which Perot did pretty well in, his approval started going up. In the second debate, Perot did even better. And the third debate was a total success for Mr. Perot. And after rally after rally, I could see it in Ross Perot's eyes, that he was extremely happy. His eyes gleamed during the rallys, and he spoke strongly and significantly better than his first rallys. But the happiest I ever saw him was on Election Day, after the race was called.”


- The Most Remarkable Years: Memoirs of a White House Chief of Staff by Clay Mulford


genusmap.php



Businessman Ross Perot (I-TX) / Fmr. Vice Adm. James Stockdale (I-CA) – 277 EVs
Gov. Bill Clinton (D-AR) / Sen. Al Gore (D-TN) – 210 EVs
Pres. George Bush (R-TX) / Vice Pres. Dan Quayle (R-IN) – 51 EVs


It was about 12:30, at midnight, when Ross Perot made his acceptance speech on a platform in Houston, Texas. He was almost dancing around, he was so happy; this was only about a half hour after CNN called California for Ross Perot, putting him ahead of the 270 mark. Still, we were able to convince him to make the speech he needed to make. It was then that the president-elect of the United States beckoned for the crowd to stop its noise. 'Well, folks,' he said, with that gleam in his eyes, 'It's been a long, good year. Since that March day that I began my campaign, we have gone through so much. And by voting me into office tonight, we have proved that we can admit our mistakes and set them right. By electing me your next president, I am going to show that I am not like other politicians – I will do what I promise, unlike the many politicians who have run for president and not done what they were elected to do. I promise universal health care and a better America in general.'”



    • The Most Remarkable Years: Memoirs of a White House Chief of Staff by Clay Mulford


Before I say anything about the past year, I would like to congratulate the president-elect of the United States, Henry Ross Perot. I would like to promise the president-elect that I will aid him in the transition period until January 20th, and I will work with Mr. Perot over the next few months to get him in the mood of being the president. I'd like to thank not only our next president, but Governor Clinton as well, for a well-dealt campaign. I'd like to thank everyone who voted for me, and for those who did not vote for me, I hope you will be satisfied with Mr. Perot in his presidency. To my supporters, I say this: We did the best we could. And we did a great job. We voiced our opinion in this election that exercises the American freedom, and that's what mattered.”



    • President George Bush's Concession Speech, November 3, 1992


TO BE CONTINUED
 
Last edited:
This is a good what if. .... What is Ross Perot did not drop out in August of 1992?

What would his presedency be like

1.) He would have a balanced budget
2.) He would most likely have pulled all US troops from the Arabian peninsula. Would this lead to reduced terrorism against the US?

Would he have gotten involved with
Somalia?
Balkans?
Probably not Somalia, maybe so for Bosnia if it were a NATO mission.

3.) He favored a gas tax, protectionalism, and companies not going to lower wage countries.

4.) Was there anything that Clinton did to bring on the .com and wall street boom in the 90's that Perot might mess up? Probably not since he was a pioneer in the IT world.

5.) How would Congress react?

6.) Would he be re-elected? Probably so.

7.) Would his party name be? Hopefully not the Reform party, perhaps the American party?

I am looking forward to what you do with H Ross's first term. Those are just seven of the questions that I am waiting for.
 
well I think what we've said every time this comes up that Congress would turn into NOville for President Perot, as the two parties freak out and try and kill his Presidency

Your right, I forgot about all of the other independent president threads and the fact that they will get zero support.

Perhaps though, Perot would not have any major, comprehensive legislation that he would like to be approved by Congress like the Obama health coverage. He mainly wanted a balanced budget.

Would he need Congress to pass a balanced budget or could he first have a balanced budget with the budget that Congress does approve and his actual executive spending to meet or better yet to beat that budget. He can demonstrate that he can curtail spending without major fights while he builds his party to gain congressional seats in 1994. That is he starts a balanced budget revolution within the executive branch.

The election in 1992 would be a referendum for balanced spending, which he would continue to politic on after gaining office. It also seems like their would be enough support from both sides from individual congressmen that he could form a balanced budget alliance. In such an alliance, he does not say what Congress should spend money on, just as long as it all balances in the end. He would have this alliance to veto any budget that comes to him that is not balanced.

Would these two strategies be feasible?
 
I like it:p So is the POD just a better run campaign?

That, and he doesn't drop out in July 1992. He did so IOTL because the George Bush campaign had threatened Perot with digitally-altered photos that would ruin his daughter's wedding of the same month, and Perot dropped out because he didn't want his daughter to be unhappy. IMO, that was a really good thing of him to do, but still... what if, right?

The choice was between a Democrat, an independent, and a registered trademark?:p Auto-correct FTW

Yeah, Bush decided to get his name trademarked - looks like I owe him money now...;)

This is a good what if. .... What is Ross Perot did not drop out in August of 1992?

What would his presedency be like

1.) He would have a balanced budget
2.) He would most likely have pulled all US troops from the Arabian peninsula. Would this lead to reduced terrorism against the US?

Would he have gotten involved with
Somalia?
Balkans?
Probably not Somalia, maybe so for Bosnia if it were a NATO mission.

3.) He favored a gas tax, protectionalism, and companies not going to lower wage countries.

4.) Was there anything that Clinton did to bring on the .com and wall street boom in the 90's that Perot might mess up? Probably not since he was a pioneer in the IT world.

5.) How would Congress react?

6.) Would he be re-elected? Probably so.

7.) Would his party name be? Hopefully not the Reform party, perhaps the American party?

I am looking forward to what you do with H Ross's first term. Those are just seven of the questions that I am waiting for.

Those are some very good questions, and I hope to answer a lot of them. As for the Reform Party, you are correct, there will still be a Reform Party that becomes somewhat a major party, though you are also correct, it's name may not be the Reform Party... if it isn't, I haven't figured out a new name for it, but I will, because the party is coming soon.

well I think what we've said every time this comes up that Congress would turn into NOville for President Perot, as the two parties freak out and try and kill his Presidency

Well, this is something I planned for, luckily.;) And of course, you're right, they probably will try to kill his presidency, but I think the president may have some tricks up his sleeves.

Your right, I forgot about all of the other independent president threads and the fact that they will get zero support.

Perhaps though, Perot would not have any major, comprehensive legislation that he would like to be approved by Congress like the Obama health coverage. He mainly wanted a balanced budget.

Would he need Congress to pass a balanced budget or could he first have a balanced budget with the budget that Congress does approve and his actual executive spending to meet or better yet to beat that budget. He can demonstrate that he can curtail spending without major fights while he builds his party to gain congressional seats in 1994. That is he starts a balanced budget revolution within the executive branch.

The election in 1992 would be a referendum for balanced spending, which he would continue to politic on after gaining office. It also seems like their would be enough support from both sides from individual congressmen that he could form a balanced budget alliance. In such an alliance, he does not say what Congress should spend money on, just as long as it all balances in the end. He would have this alliance to veto any budget that comes to him that is not balanced.

Would these two strategies be feasible?

About the balanced budget - of course, Perot will likely go after that. And you are completely right, there will be some congressmen who support President Perot. There's also quite a few people who are into individual state politics who support Perot, and would be willing to run for Congress in '94...

I'll let this show: The 1994 midterms are going to be big. I mean, seriously big. Whichever party wins the midterms will basically decide the course of the Perot presidency, be it one term or two.

Anyway, I've got to make the next update when I get a chance, so hopefully, I will have an update coming up pretty soon. Thanks for all the comments.:)
 
Possible minor mistake in the Jim Lehrer interview
"I am the owner of a powerful country right now, and I have this company owning billions of dollars"
 
Excellent. I look forward to seeing more.

However, just one minor nitpick: the newspaper article mentions that Republicans control Congress, but in 1992, the Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate.
 
Excellent. I look forward to seeing more.

However, just one minor nitpick: the newspaper article mentions that Republicans control Congress, but in 1992, the Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate.

Ah, you're right. I'll edit that.

EDIT

Also, I notice that the electoral map isn't appearing on the update post, so I'm going to try to recreate that scenario and make the map seen visibly.
 
Nice TL, you got yourself here DA...A Perot Presidency based on the POD that He runs a stronger Campaign and doesn't drop out thus able to hold his early Summer Poll leads is pretty cool. I think one of the biggest thorns in Perot's side IOTL, was the Stockdale pick and how horribly Senile he came off in the Vice Presidential Debate. In my Reagan in '68 TL, I had Perot chose former Governor Jerry Brown of California as his running mate. Research Brown's platform from the '92 election and they running on the same type of Reformist Policies. Plus, he detested Clinton and would bring those Progressive Democrats from the Pacific Coast and the Northeast who were unsure about Slick Willie. Other potenial picks are Senator Warren Ruddman of New Hampshire, Representative Lee Hamilton of Ohio, Joint Chiefs Chairman Colin Powell of New York etc...Keep it comming:D
 
On your electoral map, why do you have many of the states that least supported Perot in OTL supporting him in TTL, with many of the states that most supported him in OTL not supporting him in TTL?

Was that really Reagan's convention speech? To me it sounded really un-Reagan-like, but I could be wrong.
 
Nice TL, you got yourself here DA...A Perot Presidency based on the POD that He runs a stronger Campaign and doesn't drop out thus able to hold his early Summer Poll leads is pretty cool. I think one of the biggest thorns in Perot's side IOTL, was the Stockdale pick and how horribly Senile he came off in the Vice Presidential Debate. In my Reagan in '68 TL, I had Perot chose former Governor Jerry Brown of California as his running mate. Research Brown's platform from the '92 election and they running on the same type of Reformist Policies. Plus, he detested Clinton and would bring those Progressive Democrats from the Pacific Coast and the Northeast who were unsure about Slick Willie. Other potenial picks are Senator Warren Ruddman of New Hampshire, Representative Lee Hamilton of Ohio, Joint Chiefs Chairman Colin Powell of New York etc...Keep it comming:D

That is some good insight, Historico, thank you. I'm sure that, due to Stockdale's age (James Stockdale would be 70 in 1993), it's fairly certain Stockdale would not run for re-election to the Veepship in '96, perhaps die before he finished his term as vice president, and I've been thinking about who Perot would pick in a '96 scenario where he was president and running on a Reform/Independent/Whatever-his-party's-name-will-be ticket. This is going to help our choices here a lot, so I thank you.

On your electoral map, why do you have many of the states that least supported Perot in OTL supporting him in TTL, with many of the states that most supported him in OTL not supporting him in TTL?

ITTL, Perot stayed in the race in July 1992, and kept his lead in the polls over Bush and Clinton. While he campaigned in the summer ITTL, he campaigned quite a bit and, while attracting many Bush voters, he attracted many voters from Clinton's column as well. I was researching a little more earlier today, and interestingly enough, I found an OTL poll that was given to people who had voted for Ross Perot in 1992. 38% would have voted for Bush if he had not been on the ballot, and 38% would have voted for Clinton if he had not been on the ballot, and the last 24% just would have stayed at home if Perot had not been on the ballot. I'm thinking that, with TTL's Perot gaining many, many more votes, he would attract more from both sides (though, to be fair, a little more from Bush than from Clinton, but not by much), so I figure that would somehow give Perot even more states than if he had won only the states that were reliably Independent. Good question.

Was that really Reagan's convention speech? To me it sounded really un-Reagan-like, but I could be wrong.

That wasn't really his acceptance speech, I just made up something. IOTL, the Republicans seemed much less desperate than they were ITTL, due to the fact that Perot was gone. In both timelines, Reagan made a keynote address at the 1992 convention, but in this one, Reagan kind of lashes out against both candidates, probably due to the fact that Bush is trailing behind in third in the polls so far.

I dunno, though, if a lot of people think it's too un-Reaganlike, I'll change it.
 
ITTL, Perot stayed in the race in July 1992, and kept his lead in the polls over Bush and Clinton. While he campaigned in the summer ITTL, he campaigned quite a bit and, while attracting many Bush voters, he attracted many voters from Clinton's column as well. I was researching a little more earlier today, and interestingly enough, I found an OTL poll that was given to people who had voted for Ross Perot in 1992. 38% would have voted for Bush if he had not been on the ballot, and 38% would have voted for Clinton if he had not been on the ballot, and the last 24% just would have stayed at home if Perot had not been on the ballot. I'm thinking that, with TTL's Perot gaining many, many more votes, he would attract more from both sides (though, to be fair, a little more from Bush than from Clinton, but not by much), so I figure that would somehow give Perot even more states than if he had won only the states that were reliably Independent. Good question.

Hmmm, maybe I didn't word it correctly. What I'm saying is that you have Perot leading in states that in OTL he garnered smaller percentages of the vote (i.e., NY) compared to other states where he did very well (such as, well, most of the Midwest), where you don't have him in the lead.

To compare: if I wrote a timeline where I wanted George Wallace to win the 1968 election, you would be surprised if I had him leading in states he didn't do well in IOTL (Massachusetts, California) and trailing in states that he did very well in IOTL (Alabama, Mississippi), and rightly so.

This has been discussed before here, with excellent calculations by MarkBunny.

By my estimates, this is the most likely Perot victory map, requiring 30.5% of the popular vote, and giving him 274 electoral votes.

genusmap.php
 
That, and he doesn't drop out in July 1992. He did so IOTL because the George Bush campaign had threatened Perot with digitally-altered photos that would ruin his daughter's wedding of the same month, and Perot dropped out because he didn't want his daughter to be unhappy. IMO, that was a really good thing of him to do, but still... what if, right?

Is there any proof of that? I recall the claim as being one more reason many regarded him as unstable.

He also claimed there had been a hit squad of seven Black Panthers that tried to kill him at his mansion back in the 70s. Molly Ivins did a column mocking that. For one thing, there were only six BPs in the state of Texas at the party's "height," and most of them were police informers.

I recall most journalists suspected someone just passed along a crazy rumor which he took all too seriously. It'd be interesting to see something similar in your TL when he's already pres.
 
Is there any proof of that? I recall the claim as being one more reason many regarded him as unstable.

I remember he claimed there was something afoot with his daughter's wedding, but I don't recall any proof Bush's campaign actually did anything.

Of course, all I really remember from that period was the SNL presidential debate (which includes Ross Perot as a Munchkin from "The Wizard of Oz") and voting for Perot in my elementary school class mock election because I saw a TV ad touting his business experience.
 
Hmmm, maybe I didn't word it correctly. What I'm saying is that you have Perot leading in states that in OTL he garnered smaller percentages of the vote (i.e., NY) compared to other states where he did very well (such as, well, most of the Midwest), where you don't have him in the lead.

To compare: if I wrote a timeline where I wanted George Wallace to win the 1968 election, you would be surprised if I had him leading in states he didn't do well in IOTL (Massachusetts, California) and trailing in states that he did very well in IOTL (Alabama, Mississippi), and rightly so.

This has been discussed before here, with excellent calculations by MarkBunny.

By my estimates, this is the most likely Perot victory map, requiring 30.5% of the popular vote, and giving him 274 electoral votes.

genusmap.php


I totally agree with Douglas' map and agument...basically what he is saying DA is that there was a Reason why Perot performed so well in the Midwest. He attracted those non-ideological voters, who believe that the Government that Governs least Governs best rural voters. Perot's campaign focused on generating a huge groundswell of populisim based soley on an Anti-Deficit Platform. So in a TL, where he doesn't drop out, I can see him cementing his strongest states IOTL, to the point where their actual victories. But Where not trying to hijack your TL, DA lol...changing an electoral map really is a minute detail in the overall scope of your timeline.
 
Top