Hmm.... Bush would probably still cut taxes like Reagan did so that doesn't change. The biggest question is though is how does Bush deal with and work with Paul Volcker? Does he go along and let Volcker do what he needed to do to get inflation under control, or does he can him in favor of someone else? Bush is probably going to spend less than Reagan did to.
Another thing to consider, as jmc247 said, is that Reagan "did what FDR was able to do and gave hope to a people who believed the economy was never going to get any better." Bush had a very mild recession happen during his Presidency OTL from 1990-91 and did very little to spur confidence and convince people that things were going to get better and this played a key role in his loss in 1992. If he handles the economy of the early '80s, which was much worse the same way, the only thing he has going for him in 1984 is the Democratic party being the utter cluster f*ck that it was in the 1970's and 1980's.
In my view, this was enough for him to win. Bush may not have won as badly, nor would he have inspired as much crossover vote, but if the Democrats are on the same path on the Presidential level that they were in '84, it does not matter at all.
![]()
This convention sign is all that needs to be said for the Dems in '84. This was not going to win much of anything. It put Democrat voters firmly in Reagan's camp.