President H. Ross Perot

[BlackMage]

See, the problem with this sort of thing is that it could go either way for the major parties.

Perot could move the political spectrum in a libertarian direction, forcing both major parties towards him. So we see the rise of the Buchananite faction in the GOP, and the DLC faction in the Democrats.

Or, alternately, Perot's consumption of the libertarian constituency could drive the other major parties away from him. Reduced to their southern, Bible Belt base, the GOP could be driven closer to the Religious Right, and the Democrats could go more economically left-wing.

Which one would be more interesting, do you think?

 

[Fenwick]

I think what could be interesting is how parties deal with Perot. The man had a very specific goal in mind in becoming President, and that was fixing the economy. Anyone remeber those pie charts?

So you would of course get people from both sides going to Perot and endorsing his economic plans. He wasn't cutting alot of programs (according to his campaign) he was just cutting budgets, and raising taxes enough to even everything out.

Seems like a pretty good president, focus on the country, and the economic markets. The problem is how to deal with international problems, for how would Perot handle such situations? Add on top of that things like Somalia would almost certainly be attacked by the left and right as a sigtn of his unfittness as president. Can you imagine a third party President in the era of tv, and the emerging cable news networks during things like Rawanda?

Next election you'd get people running for President on platforms of return to the Moral Majority, or focusing on social issues. Wether this is good or bad, who knows?

 

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

See, the problem with this sort of thing is that it could go either way for the major parties.

Perot could move the political spectrum in a libertarian direction, forcing both major parties towards him. So we see the rise of the Buchananite faction in the GOP, and the DLC faction in the Democrats.

Or, alternately, Perot's consumption of the libertarian constituency could drive the other major parties away from him. Reduced to their southern, Bible Belt base, the GOP could be driven closer to the Religious Right, and the Democrats could go more economically left-wing.

Which one would be more interesting, do you think?

It Would Liikely Be Similar to The Maneuverings, Riight Before OTL's 1996 Presidential Race ...

A Dole-Liike Candidate Would Be, Of, By, and For The Biible Belt, While a Clintonite, Would Be Pushing a Universal Health Care Plan ...

IOW, a LOT More Liike a European-Style Electorate, And Possibly, a Muuch More Inclusiive One!

 

[Douglas]

I don't think Perot gets another term...simply because he will be attacked for four years straight, and any mistakes will be attacked by the media and the Washington establishment...not to mention he would've won with less than 40% of the vote.

I predict an "interesting" Republican candidate like Buchanan or even (!) Forbes, and a nice, centrist Democrat similar to Clinton. The Democrats win in 1996 with someone like Gephardt or Gore.

 

[BlackMage]

Actually, what about electoral reform?

In OTL, Perot spent $70 million of his own money--to lose. As the highest third-party candidate ever, could reform of the electoral system to favour such candidates be a part of his agenda?

Of course, it would be impossible to get through Congress...

The Congressional situation would be very interesting. You'd have a bloc of moderates (fiscal conservative, social liberal) from both parties (not coincidently, mostly from marginal seats) who'd support Perot's middle-of-the-road, technocratic, non-ideological approach. Whereas the fringes of both parties would be adamantly opposed to him, for opposing reasons.

So I think that Congress under Perot could turn into a de facto three-party system--a moderate bloc supporting Perot, a liberal Democrat bloc, a conservative Republican bloc, and with Perot (as kingmaker) being forced to make alliances with either of the two to win concessions.

Whether a Reform Party forms is an open question. If he's popular enough leading into 1994, he could form a party to support his platform in the midterm elections--so we could get a real three-party system in Congress.

 

[MaxMahem]

While I don't think Perot would be a terrible President, I don't think he would be able to many of his campaign promises. With congress controlled by the democrats, most of his proposals would be dead on arrival. His planed cuts for social security in particularly would have a hard time finding passage (and would probably guarantee that he would not be re-elected). We might possibly see a earlier government shutdown if he and congress are unable to reach a compromise on his proposed spending cuts, though I think he and congress would probably be able to compromise on this issues. I'm not sure what would come for his push for electoral reform either.

Foreign policy is harder to determine. Obviously we would see no NAFTA under the Perot administration. And I think he would probably see a more isolationist trend. I don't know how much protectionist legislature he would be able to get past, but this would obviously bring the US into conflict with the Chinese, Europeans, and WTO. He might withhold US involvement in the Balkans and Haiti, which might lead to the continuation of those dictatorships. He certainly would not extend Clinton's loan to Mexico, which would lead to the situation deteriorating over there, possibly even a revolution. Probably no Middle East peace efforts (though that makes little difference in the long run), and who knows about the hunt for Osama, though Perot would probably take some action. We would probably normalize relations with the Vietnamese though, (Don't know what Stockton would think about that, former POW).

Most difficult would be the effects on future congressional elections. Would the republicans gain control of Congress? More third party candidates? A second term for Perot (seems unlikely to me).

--

Ironicly, I happen to live in the birth place of Ross Perot, Texarkana, TX. He done great things for my town, so I wish him nothing but the best. I wasn't old enough to vote then, but I supported him.

 

[reformer]

yah know, a more competitive vice presidential candidate might give Perot the edge.

 

[alt_historian]

OK, here's a map drawn up based on Marky Bunny's calculations. It doesn't take into account the effects of an increased Perot vote on the other states, making it technically inaccurate, but it does lead to some interesting conclusions.

• Perot's strength is almost entirely a product of the Mountain West and New England--a combination of economic and social libertarianism.
• The Republican Party has been reduced to a few redoubts in the South--this is their 1912, all over again.
• Clinton has much more broad-based support, putting the Democrats in a much better position for 1996.

Incidently, any suggestions for the 1996 nominees for both parties?

Re the map: excuse me for pointing this out as a Brit, but I thought that on these election result maps, the Republican party is usually red, and the Democrats are blue?
It's confusing for us, because our equivalents (Conservatives, Labour) are the other way around.
Oh well. Just thought I'd mention it, I don't have any comment on Perot cos I know nothing about him, for obvious reasons! Except what I've picked up from this board, and from the Simpsons of all places...

However, from what I've seen so far, he seems an interesting character. Raising taxes? You can't do that! Isn't it unAmerican? Aside from that, I feel it would be good for American politics to become a thee-party system. I though British politics was bad, but at least we have the Lib Dems. Even if they are all moving to the right...

 

[BlackMage]

Re the map: excuse me for pointing this out as a Brit, but I thought that on these election result maps, the Republican party is usually red, and the Democrats are blue?
It's confusing for us, because our equivalents (Conservatives, Labour) are the other way around.

Good point. I'm Australian, so I have the same thing.

They only changed it for the 2000 election: before that, networks used the colours inconsistently. I used an older map.

Oh well. Just thought I'd mention it, I don't have any comment on Perot cos I know nothing about him, for obvious reasons! Except what I've picked up from this board, and from the Simpsons of all places...

However, from what I've seen so far, he seems an interesting character. Raising taxes? You can't do that! Isn't it unAmerican? Aside from that, I feel it would be good for American politics to become a thee-party system. I though British politics was bad, but at least we have the Lib Dems. Even if they are all moving to the right...

Heh. It's good to have a British perspective. I too knew almost nothing about Perot (except from The Simpsons; 'Well, I believe I'll vote for a third party candidate!' 'Go ahead! Throw your vote away!' ) until I got into history.

 

[MerryPrankster]

yah know, a more competitive vice presidential candidate might give Perot the edge.

Yeah...I think Admiral Stockdale either fell asleep during the VP debate or had some kind of episode and that, besides, Perot dropping out, really hurt him.

Perhaps a new VP would be a knock-on effect of the POD. Perot stays in the race and Stockdale gets tired and stressed out a lot and resigns. Perot then brings in Pat Buchanan or some other anti-Bush Republican as his VP.

 

[Marky Bunny]

Yeah...I think Admiral Stockdale either fell asleep during the VP debate or had some kind of episode and that, besides, Perot dropping out, really hurt him.

Perhaps a new VP would be a knock-on effect of the POD. Perot stays in the race and Stockdale gets tired and stressed out a lot and resigns. Perot then brings in Pat Buchanan or some other anti-Bush Republican as his VP.

Stockdale was only a "holding" VP annouced when Perot first entered the race, but Perot told him he would be replaced by the start of the national campaign.
Stockdale had a hearing aid, in the debate, and said at the the start of the VP Debate "What am I doing here"!!!!!

 

[MaxMahem]

Replacing Stockdale would probably help the Perot campaign, and is plausable, given as he was only a "holding" canidate, and never expected to be part of the national ticket (the whole Perot exit and re-entery threw all that out of wack). However they guy gets a bad rap from the VP debate. While his performance certianly wasn't the greatest (Al Gore was easily the best), it wasn't so bad as him falling asleep and all that.

In particular his opening statement, "Who am I? Why am I here?" were retorical questions ment to refrence his non-political nature. Not a moment of senility. His hearing aid may have inhibited his performance as well, giving him trouble following the debate and the questions (he had to have one repeated). Check out the transcipt here:
http://www.debates.org/pages/trans92d.html

 

[Marky Bunny]

Replacing Stockdale would probably help the Perot campaign, and is plausable, given as he was only a "holding" canidate, and never expected to be part of the national ticket (the whole Perot exit and re-entery threw all that out of wack). However they guy gets a bad rap from the VP debate. While his performance certianly wasn't the greatest (Al Gore was easily the best), it wasn't so bad as him falling asleep and all that.

In particular his opening statement, "Who am I? Why am I here?" were retorical questions ment to refrence his non-political nature. Not a moment of senility. His hearing aid may have inhibited his performance as well, giving him trouble following the debate and the questions (he had to have one repeated). Check out the transcipt here:
http://www.debates.org/pages/trans92d.html

I know Stockdales opening statement was meant to retorical, but it just came across the wrong way.
If Perot stays in the race, who would he have picked as VP. An anti-Bush Republican or a moderate Dem?

 

[Douglas]

I know Stockdales opening statement was meant to retorical, but it just came across the wrong way.
If Perot stays in the race, who would he have picked as VP. An anti-Bush Republican or a moderate Dem?

A moderate Democrat or Republican would be optimal. Perot was already hammering away at Bush, someone to lure voters (albeit few...I mean, this is the VP we're talking about!) away from Clinton would be helpful.

 

[Jasen777]

Colin Powell would be ideal, except that it might be a bit too early for him. And he's shown no desire for running for office. And I don't if he'd get along with Perot.

But still ideal as a vote-getting VP candidate.

 

[trajen777]

If Perot had won the interesting thing for him to do would be to pick for the cabinet the “Best of each Party” or at least key leaders in the Party. Being g from Minnesota originally I found the Governor ship of Jessie Ventura interesting from a political point that he did just that – picking Demacans and Republicrats to key positions. The house did not know who to criticize since they would be attacking some of there own.

In Jessie’s campaign debate my favorite was when a question was asked the Republic gave a true political answer as did the Democrat – Jessie turned to the audience and said “I don’t know about you but what the hell did they just say” then he would really answer the question.

Any way I never liked him but he really played up the anti – politician

 

[Historico]

Colin Powell would be ideal, except that it might be a bit too early for him. And he's shown no desire for running for office. And I don't if he'd get along with Perot.

But still ideal as a vote-getting VP candidate.

I actually think having Colin run as his VP, would do him alot more good than running with Stockdale. IIRC, Perot had some problems reaching out to the minority voters...He could swing, alot more blacks to vote for a Perot/Powell ticket who probably wound't have voted for Powell as a Republican.

Another choice would 2 go for someone who is alot more youthful, and more articulate speaker, with executive expeirence for Perot. No names come to the top of my head, but I will definatley research further