No Ross Perot

just wondering what would happen if for one reason or another the 1992 presidential election was just between Clinton and Bush no Perot?
 
Well, the world's largest prison breakout for a long time would be different, and someone else would be the first to fly around the world in a helicopter.
 
just wondering what would happen if for one reason or another the 1992 presidential election was just between Clinton and Bush no Perot?

Wouldn't Bush win? Perot took more right of centre votes than centre left.

No Clinton Presidency and George Bush senior would probably be better at handling the post cold war transition. The economy was coming out of recession anyway and the war in Yugoslavia might have been dealt with sooner and with greater confidence than the somewhat amateurish policy of the Clinton presidency.
 
I think Bush would win, but not because I believe that Perot ended up drawing a great many supporters from Bush; there definitely was something there in the form of Buchanan Republicans who were fond of Perot's positions, but they were not prominent. I believe Ross ended up drawing a bunch of potential voters into the race that would not have even become part of the process otherwise, and many of those, after Perot dropped out temporarily in the Summer, went on over to the Clinton camp. This is just my feeling, nothing more.

Now, hypothetically speaking if this were true, the race would certainly be narrow, especially with Clinton likely performing well at the debates, but I still think Bush would pull through albeit as I said narrowly, something similar to what his son would have faced (12) years ahead.​
 
If GHWB is reelected, that probably means no Republican Revolution. Al Gore defeats Wilson or Alexander in 1996.

Pete Wilson? The one who would have Throat Surgery and be left without the ability to talk for months during the Primary Season? Well, I guess the butterfly effect could change some things, but he definitely could not put that off forever and it would be a Campaign Killer during the General Election.​
 
I would have argued that Bob Kerrey would be the strongest Democrat in 1996 had Bush beeen reelected.
 
If Bush is reelected, then in the good times of 1996, Bob Dole could have won. If we follow the economic cycles, Republicans would also win in 2000 and 2004 and then lose in 2008.
 
If Bush is reelected, then in the good times of 1996, Bob Dole could have won. If we follow the economic cycles, Republicans would also win in 2000 and 2004 and then lose in 2008.

In 1996 the Democrats are going to be favored simply because the Republicans have been in control of the White House for (16) years. Doesn't mean they are going to lose, but you are likely to have the big guns on the Democratic Side like Mario Cuomo come on out as if it is now their destiny.

Now, with the Republican field, it largely will depend on who Bush is putting himself to be lined as his proposed successor. Dole is out from the onset because of the bad blood between them. Same with Pat Buchanan. Don't know who among the rest of them.​
 
just wondering what would happen if for one reason or another the 1992 presidential election was just between Clinton and Bush no Perot?

If no Perot period (not a Perot doesn't renter...) I believe you get an very tight race. The Clinton Campaign was masterly running as two candidates, Clinton and Gore were out being "New" Democrats" drawing in the middle (remember soccer moms) and various surgates were out below the mainstream media radar assuring the traditional Democrat base that Clinton would be either Humprey or McGovern depending what the group wanted to hear (course this a recipe for a hard first year, as we saw...). Add to this the lack of excitment among Republicans and the worst campaign in American history (untill 08) and you get a tight race (Clinton was never going to pull away in a two man race, as good as his team was he brought too many negatives to win big).

I suppect election morning would be Clinton winning the electoral college and either Bush winning the popular outright or it being 50/50.

BTW, go back and look at the prediction the last week before the election, alot of people (left and right) thought Bush was a going to win the popular (possiblity as high as 52%....) but still lose the colllege (everyone got Perot's vote wrong).
 
Last edited:
If Bush is reelected, then in the good times of 1996, Bob Dole could have won. If we follow the economic cycles, Republicans would also win in 2000 and 2004 and then lose in 2008.
Butterflies, Paul, butterflies! The economy is affected by the policies of whoever is in office -- it's not just some sentient thing that goes up & down of its own free will and dictates Thou Shalt Vote For The Incumbent.
 
Butterflies, Paul, butterflies! The economy is affected by the policies of whoever is in office -- it's not just some sentient thing that goes up & down of its own free will and dictates Thou Shalt Vote For The Incumbent.

Yep, just ask Major, because by that logic he should've won in '97.
 
If Bush is reelected, then in the good times of 1996, Bob Dole could have won. If we follow the economic cycles, Republicans would also win in 2000 and 2004 and then lose in 2008.

As I recall, times were not bad in 2000. And yet, the result wasn't exactly a blowout for Gore, albeit he won the popular vote. Granted, the 2000 election was its own beast, and it would be wrong to make a direct comparison to this alternate 1996. But there might be one commonality, if the historical 1996 campaign is anything to go by, Dole is not exactly going to run an inspiring campaign. And aside from the economy, the Republicans are going to be in a tough spot in 1996. If Bush wins, it's by the smallest of majorities, and all of the issues that nearly cost Bush the election are going to remain throughout the second term. Buchanan's primary campaign betrayed a deeply divided Republican party. Historically opposition to Bill Clinton ended that division, but they don't have Bill to kick around here. So the division continues, and probably has an effect on Dole 1996. The most active Republican voters might be hostile to Dole, seeing him, against all the evidence to the contrary, as "Bush's man" "not a real conservative" etc, simply because he's the establishment pick. Not saying he won't win the nomination, he almost certainly does, just that a Dole campaign might lack enthusiasm. So a, apathetic, at best, base, an uninspiring Dole campaign, and Republican fatigue all combine into giving the Democrats a better chance than the economy might warrant. Granted, the Dems might still lose, they might nominate someone who by himself galvanizes conservatives, they might run a terrible campaign too. But a Dole victory is no inevitability
 
Top