The second term of George H. W. Bush?

Cuomo did decide to run in 1996, as did the other major Democrats who could have run. Keep in mind, before the 92 election, it was assumed Bush was going to win due to popularity. It was only when the economy started to hurt that Bush lost. Clinton was a dark horse.

Since I keep hearing about them in these discussions, I must ask: besides Cuomo and maybe Jay Rockefeller, who were the major Democrats who specifically sat out '92 or '96?
 
I think that Dole is the favorite for the GOP. The Democratic race would have no clear favorite.

I disagree. As long as the general election was not such a blowout that he was discredited, Clinton would take another stab at it. While Democrats traditionally discard their general election losers, Clinton, with his political skills being far ahead of any other conceivable candidates, would also have the name recognition, fundraising ability and campaign team to be a formidable frontrunner. And while Iowa wasn't in play in 1992 due to Harkin's run, I can think of no place better suited to Clinton's retail campaigning skills than Iowa.
 
I disagree. As long as the general election was not such a blowout that he was discredited, Clinton would take another stab at it. While Democrats traditionally discard their general election losers, Clinton, with his political skills being far ahead of any other conceivable candidates, would also have the name recognition, fundraising ability and campaign team to be a formidable frontrunner. And while Iowa wasn't in play in 1992 due to Harkin's run, I can think of no place better suited to Clinton's retail campaigning skills than Iowa.

Idk, it's been a long time since either party picked a losing nominee for a second try (Since Adlai Stevenson?). Of course, this is assuming the Clinton was the nominee ITTL. Not sure if him not getting the 1992 nomination gives him a better or worse chance in 1996.

1989 - 1997 George HW Bush
1997 - 2005 Al Gore
2005 - 2009 Joe Biden
2009 - Mitt Romney

I doubt Romney would get the nomination. He seemed like a fairly unlikely candidate IOTL, only getting chosen because of a complete lack of plausible Republican alternatives. That kind of perfect storm of unappealing candidates seems unlikely to repeat itself in a world where 2008 is following 12 years of Democratic control.
 
Since I keep hearing about them in these discussions, I must ask: besides Cuomo and maybe Jay Rockefeller, who were the major Democrats who specifically sat out '92 or '96?
I'm not sure, I never focused on it. Why? Because Cuomo could have had the nomination anytime from 1984 to 1996 had he wanted it. Cuomo is a shoe-in.
 
I'm not sure, I never focused on it. Why? Because Cuomo could have had the nomination anytime from 1984 to 1996 had he wanted it. Cuomo is a shoe-in.

Yeah, I realize that, it's just it's always spoken, re 1992, that several "major Democrats" aside from Cuomo sat out that year to the point that the Democrat field looked a lot like the GOP field in the 2012 primaries. And I'm wondering who those other Democrats are. A minor detail, but still.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I realize that, it's just it's always spoken, re 1992, that several "major Democrats" aside from Cuomo sat out that year to the point that the Democrat field looked a lot like the GOP field in the 1992 primaries. And I'm wondering who those other Democrats are. A minor detail, but still.

I guess it would be Jay Rockefeller, Lloyd Bentsen, Ann Richards, Tom Foley, and maybe Sam Nunn.
 
How does Bush win in 1992: He admits he screwed up by raising taxes in the 1990 budget deal, and fires his budget director.

As for what changes? I'd expect Bush would get two more picks for the Supreme Court. Who might they be? I'm think Emilio Garza (who almost got the seat Clarence Thomas was nominated for) - ending up the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice 12-13 years before Sotomayor. The second? Probably Orrin Hatch, a senior Republican on the Judiciary committee.

That puts the court a bit more to the right: Hatch, Scalia, Thomas, Rhenquist, and Garza would form a conservative bloc.

That leads to a shift in the Evans v. Romer ruling of 1996. Instead of Colorado's Amendment 2 going down 6-3, it is upheld 5-4.

Instead, the majority opinion, written by Justice Hatch, said, "Since the Constitution remains silent on homosexuality, under the Tenth Amendment, this issue is to be resolved via the democratic process, including state constitutional amendments. To overturn this would be to exercise political will, not judicial judgment."

That ruling managed to energize the left, giving Governor Mario Cuomo and Senator Al Gore and a narrow win in 1996 over the Dole/McCain ticket.

One other effect would be that the operations in Somalia go very differently: In OTL, the Clinton Administration denied the on-scene commander's request for armor and AC-130 gunships prior to the Blackhawk Down firefight. The Bush Administration not only sends the requested assets, but they also see things through after the engagement. The death of Mohammed Aidid at the hands of Delta Force and the Rangers in April, 1994, is a huge triumph for the Bush Administration.

Cuomo is far more liberal, and presumably dovish as well. He may try to push defense cuts, and if the embassy bombings and attack on a navy destroyer go down, it could lead to a perception that the Democrats have given America another wimp - just like Carter. That could open the door for a somewhat hawkish president.

The South was trending Republican, anyhow, so I still do not see Ann Richards holding on in 1994 in Texas. However. absent Gingrich as the leader, and with George H.W. Bush as a successful president, I can see Jeb winning the Florida governorship that year as well.

By 2000, the GOP may end up beating Cuomo by putting up a Bush/Cheney ticket - only it will end up being Jeb Bush and Dick Cheney - primarily because of the "wimp factor" that is attaching to the Democrats. Jeb's Florida win will be decisive, making the "butterfly ballot" a footnote in history, and leading to a less toxic political environment. Jeb replaces Sandra Day O'Connor with John Roberts in 2002, and when Rhenquist dies in 2005, he is replaced as Chief Justice by Roberts, while Ken Starr, a former Solicitor General, is chosen as a new Associate Justice to replace Roberts.
 
No incumbent President will lose in 2000. Especially Mario Cuomo. He's going to be the Democrat's Reagan. His speaking power makes it clear that he is not a wimp. Kind of like Obama.

Ann Richards will certainly win if 1994 is Bush's Six Year Itch. W. and Jeb likely won't run while their father is President, and if they did, they will lose. 1994 will be a big Democratic year.
 
No incumbent President will lose in 2000. Especially Mario Cuomo. He's going to be the Democrat's Reagan. His speaking power makes it clear that he is not a wimp. Kind of like Obama.

Ann Richards will certainly win if 1994 is Bush's Six Year Itch. W. and Jeb likely won't run while their father is President, and if they did, they will lose. 1994 will be a big Democratic year.

Not so sure... keep in mind, the South is still becoming more Republican. And the 1992 election, if Bush wins, may have a big swing to the GOP in the House. If the South trends GOP, then Richards may be vulnerable, especially if attacking a respected incumbent President as she did.

And it takes a LOT more than talk to avoid being labeled a wimp.
 
It would have been difficult for Bush to win, even if he admitted he was wrong by raising taxes. His approval ratings were atrocious throughout '92 and it's really difficult to imagine a rise if there is not an outside event to nudge them upward (like, you know, another war).

Like Carter in '80, Bush's hands were tied by things way out of his control. He couldn't just snap his fingers and create the illusion of a growing economy because, even if we saw monthly gains by '92, they were often so anemic (less than 100,000) most months, that it helped cement the idea the country was really on a downward trend again - after a few years of positive economic growth.

No president is going to be able to win in that climate.

So, maybe the whole Gennifer Flowers ordeal doesn't come out in early 1992 and instead hits around October. The blowback from that, the fact Clinton doesn't have much time for damage control, takes an otherwise close race and slides it barely over to President Bush.

In '92, he was able to discredit Flowers, go on national TV after the Super Bowl (which really helped boost those ratings) and was aided by a relatively weak field. Even then, it took forever for Clinton to not only lock up the Democratic nomination (way into spring), but also overtake Bush in the polls (that didn't happen until after the convention). It's possible without Flowers, without that hanging over his head, he's able to cruise to the nomination and holds a significant lead, therefore cushioning the fall once it comes, but I think, had it been revealed in October, the damage could be enough to give Bush a very narrow electoral college victory:

genusmap.php


Bush: 275
Clinton: 263

But even that's hard to imagine considering Clinton won so many states comfortably and it took taking a few states that probably wouldn't have gone Bush and labeling 'em Bush.

I guess you could take Perot out of the equation, which still defies common sense, since Perot stole equal amounts of votes from Clinton & Bush (according to exit polls). But maybe, with Clinton's infidelity playing a larger role so late in the game, those Perot voters are more likely to support Bush instead.

Who knows. Like '08, though, it's just really difficult finding a path to victory for the incumbent party.
 
Meh, if you want Bush to win, the nominee for the Democrats can't be either Clinton or Cuomo. Probably either Gore or (as much as I love him) Tsongas.

On that map, you could probably switch Arkansas, California, Illinois, and Pennsylvania to Bush. No Perot would be the trick for some of those.
 
Perot could run an insurgent campaign in 1996 for the Republican nomination if he still wants to speak up. In my TL, I viewed the most probable candidates for 1996 would be Dan Quayle, Pat Buchanan, Caroll Campbell, Lamar Alexander, Bob Dole, Phil Gramm, Pete Wilson, maybe Norman Schwarzkopf (as Colin Powell will never run for the presidency)... For the Dems, Birch Bayh, Al Gore, Jay Rockefeller, Mario Cuomo, Ann Richards, Joe Biden, Bill Bradley, John Kerry, Sam Nunn, Douglas Wilder, Paul Wellstone
 
Considering all the baggage Clinton had in his closet I don't imagine it's too much of a stretch for a "bimbo eruption" to emerge as an October surprise, and Daddy to win it in a squeaker.
 
Top