No Perot in 92', does 41' have a shot?

If independent presidential candidate and Texas businessman Ross Perot never ran in the 1992 presidential election does George Bush Senior have a chance at reelection.
 

Jasen777

Donor
Perot drew votes evenly (as far as we can tell) so there shouldn't be a direct difference. But Perot not running is a big change in itself, you'd get a completely different campaign. Bush could get lucky, with the right writer :p
 
Perot drew votes evenly (as far as we can tell) so there shouldn't be a direct difference. But Perot not running is a big change in itself, you'd get a completely different campaign. Bush could get lucky, with the right writer :p

Yeah I am planning on doing a 90's political/cultural TL where Bush win's a second term but I am not sure how plausible it is against Clinton.
 

Jasen777

Donor
Yeah I am planning on doing a 90's political/cultural TL where Bush win's a second term but I am not sure how plausible it is against Clinton.

It's certainly doable with the right POD. For instance, if Saddam would have been kind enough to invade Kuwait a bit later, Bush could still have a bit of his war popularity bump left at voting time.
 
Perot actually quit the race for a while before reentering, and during that entire time Clinton stayed in the lead in every poll. It's not far-fetched to say Clinton would've won even without Perot, especially if he performs exactly the same in the debates.
 
Actually, if you're trying to go for a Bush win scenario, have Perot run but don't drop out. Prior to his dropping out, Clinton was consistently in third place, with Perot and Bush swapping the lead several times.
 
Actually, if you're trying to go for a Bush win scenario, have Perot run but don't drop out. Prior to his dropping out, Clinton was consistently in third place, with Perot and Bush swapping the lead several times.
Yup. I don't think anyone's ever had Clinton get third place before in a TL, which would be very rough on the Democratic Party.
 
As others have said, no Peraux would change the 92 race a great deal, meaning that Bush has a chance of winning. That's not to say he couldn't win with Peraux's presents in the race as well-you could have Clinton either not run or lose in the primaries to Tsongas, Brown or whoever else-and their's always the chance of a bimbo-related "October Surprise" blowing up. I was considering doing a TL involving Bush winning in 92-and the Pod is Quayle dying in a car accident not long before the convention. Clearly, this means Bush is forced to pick a more attractive running mate, without necesarily calling into question his own judgement 4 years previously by picking Quayle in the first place.

Quayle's early death helps reunite the GOP and gives Bush a minor sympathy boost. Quayle jokes are obviously taboo after the accident-and all this combines to enable Bush to pull a win.
 
Actually, if you're trying to go for a Bush win scenario, have Perot run but don't drop out. Prior to his dropping out, Clinton was consistently in third place, with Perot and Bush swapping the lead several times.

What could be interesting is if Perot stayed in but Bush wins, what would that mean for the Reform Party and the American political system, considering that Reform may be less of a joke now if it actually has a candidate who won electoral votes.
 
Perot actually quit the race for a while before reentering, and during that entire time Clinton stayed in the lead in every poll. It's not far-fetched to say Clinton would've won even without Perot, especially if he performs exactly the same in the debates.

Actually, if you're trying to go for a Bush win scenario, have Perot run but don't drop out. Prior to his dropping out, Clinton was consistently in third place, with Perot and Bush swapping the lead several times.
Really? seems massively implausible.
 

Flubber

Banned
Really? seems massively implausible.


They're both looking at the polls during different periods of the campaign, mostly before the party conventions.

In June, before the conventions and before he dropped out, Perot led Bush by ~8% while Clinton had less than 25% of the vote.

In July, after Perot's bizarre behavior and the DNC convention, Clinton polled at 55%.

Late in September, after Perot's reentry and the RNC convention in August, Clinton's polls steadily dropped down towards the 43% he received in November.

Perot's campaign, especially his dropping out and reentering, managed to both hurt and help both Bush and Clinton at different times. Before he dropped out, he was taking more of the "we want change/reform" vote away from Clinton than he was taking the "steady on/fiscal responsibility" vote away for Bush. After he dropped out, the "change/reform" went almost exclusively to Clinton giving Clinton the biggest convention boost in history.

The convention boost is what allowed Clinton to win, he lost ~12% of his lead between June and November, so Perot did help Clinton. It was more a matter of giving Clinton enough momentum to last 100 days or so than a matter of taking enough votes away from Bush.
 

JRScott

Banned
If Ross Perot doesn't drop our of the race then Adm. Stockdale would have been replaced, he was a placeholder name to meet ballot access laws but the plan was to replace him, but because of dropping out and then coming back in there was not time to replace him. John Silber would be the most likely candidate to replace Stockdale, but there might be others.

This means the VP debate will not be a disaster. This probably means that Clinton remains in third.

Then Bush and Perot would trade places and in the end Bush Wins, Perot does admirably well gaining some electoral votes, and Clinton probably would still take a few states like his home state of Arkansas.

This would send the Democrat party into a tailspin probably and it most likely would fracture. Its a big tent party and you'd see some join the Republicans, some join the Reformers, but others would join other parties like the Greens which could gain power and clout int he future from this as well.

Bush can't run again in 96, which could set up for Ross Perot and the Reform Party to take the 96 election. This after a strong showing in the mid terms taking actual seats in the House and Senate. (It doesn't have to be many they could take 10% and that changes everything). Perot probably has a different running mate in 96.
 
Really? seems massively implausible.
OTL is like that.

Replacing Stockdale might cause some problems. It won't be the Eagleton Disaster, but it'll probably give Clinton a good boost.
The Democratic Party isn't going to fracture. The Republicans survived the disasters the Roosevelts inflicted on them as a party. Mario Cuomo is going to win a landslide in 1996, and he'll be able to coopt part of Perot's base so Newt can't pull a Republican Revolution as effectively in 1998 (which would be rather implausible even with a butterfly net due to the economy alone).
 

JRScott

Banned
OTL is like that.

Replacing Stockdale might cause some problems. It won't be the Eagleton Disaster, but it'll probably give Clinton a good boost.
The Democratic Party isn't going to fracture. The Republicans survived the disasters the Roosevelts inflicted on them as a party. Mario Cuomo is going to win a landslide in 1996, and he'll be able to coopt part of Perot's base so Newt can't pull a Republican Revolution as effectively in 1998 (which would be rather implausible even with a butterfly net due to the economy alone).

If it was a Republican or Democrat ticket changing then I'd agree, but largely changing a third party ticket isn't viewed all that strange and would not negatively impact them.

I also think you underestimate the impact of a successful third party would have on the Democrats and Republicans. If they came in 2nd in 92. Then managed to take seats in 94 in the House and maybe a Senate seat its going to cause major political ripples. The Democrats would feel it first in this case, but don't be surprised if the Republicans say after Bush leaves office in 96 suffers similar problems.
 
Top