Republican Domination?

I'm not entirely aware of the Bush/Perot situation that went on in the early 90s, so maybe somebody could shed some light on here. But I was always under the impression that Perot basically stole a lot of conservative votes that H. W. Bush would otherwise have gotten. So maybe go with something like this:

1992, Perot is showing a strong interest in the Presidency. Bush is worried that he might lose votes to Perot and they'd both lose to Clinton. Since Bush can only run for one more term anyway, the two make a deal. Perot will back out of 1992 in return for the Republican nomination in 1996.

How many votes would Bush receive with Perot out of the race? How many of those votes would go to Clinton? Could Bush win?

1996, assuming Bush won, who would get the Democratic nomination? Could Perot, being endorsed by President Bush, actually be the Republican nominee? Could he actually win in 96? And if he does, possibly in 2000 too? This is of course way too early, but how might a President Perot respond to 9/11? (Or would 20 years of conservative rule beef up the military to stop 9/11?)
 
Perot would certainly not get the Republican nomination. The Democrats may run Al Gore in 1996 and probably win since people would be tired of Republican domination after 16 years.
 
I'm not entirely aware of the Bush/Perot situation that went on in the early 90s, so maybe somebody could shed some light on here. But I was always under the impression that Perot basically stole a lot of conservative votes that H. W. Bush would otherwise have gotten. So maybe go with something like this:

Bzzt. Stop right there. Perot split his votes roughly half from Clinton and roughly half Bush. Perot's voters used to be Republicans, by and large, but they drifted away from the 1960s onwards.

No Perot and all other things being equal, Clinton still wins.

Nor is Perot electable in a Republican primary. Nor would Bush cut a deal, because both he and Perot would know (assuming it's one of his saner days) that Perot wouldn't win the '96 primaries.


As for further Republican dominance…*um, they've been in charge since 1966 with a couple years off after Watergate and two years of Clinton before the '94 midterms forced him into a holding action.

Now Democrats have usually controlled Congress, but before '94 that was on the backs of Southern Democrats—who, typically, voted with Republicans on a whole bunch of issues.

There hasn't been a liberal President with a liberal Congress since 1965. There have been plenty of moderate Presidents/Congresses, and plenty of conservative ones but an actual liberal one hasn't been since 1965 and maybe sort-of arguably today (although I'd call it moderate leaning to liberal, which is probably still the best since 1977).
 
The only way I could see the deal being anywhere near viable would be if Bush dropped Quayle from the ticket and replaced him with Perot. If the combined ticket won, Perot as sitting VP would be the frontrunner for the Republican nomination in 96; but if he isn't VP, the race is wide open even if he has Bush's endorsement.

I think a Bush/Perot ticket would probably win. Yes, exit polls showed Perot voters splitting 50/50 between Bush and Clinton as their second choices, but that's after a long, nasty campaign which called a lot of attention to Bush's negatives, particularly why conservatives wouldn't be happy with him.

But I don't think Perot would take the deal, even as VP. He got into the race as a Bush critic, and when he dropped out he endorsed Clinton. He seemed more interested in defeating Bush as in becoming President himself.

I have an easier time seeing him cutting a deal with Clinton -- probably a co-presidency deal similar to the proposed Reagan/Ford ticket in 1980, where Perot would have a sustantial portfolio of executive powers delegated to him as VP. Even this seems unlikely, though, since before Perot dropped out (during the Democratic convention) he was polling way ahead of Clinton and a few points ahead of Bush.
 
A much more interesting scenario, in my opinion would be to give '92 to Clinton (because it would take a significant kick in the butt to get the GOP moving in '92... EVERYONE -- esp. the Dems -- thought Clinton was going to lose, his victory showed that the people really did want something different). In 96 however, things could have changed. Bob Dole was, indeed, older and not nearly as vibrant as Clinton, but his choice in VP sunk him, in my opinion. What chances does Perot have if he had chosen Voinovich instead? Voinovich is from Ohio - a crucial swing state - and had been wildly successful as mayor of Cleveland - a hugely Democratic city - in the 1980s.
Now given how lucky we were with our economy in the 90s, it would have been difficult for anyone to beat Clinton (or any incumbent for that matter) in 1996, but what about this scenario?
 
Top