Timeline Idea Exploration: Bush Sr. 2nd Term

I'm exploring the idea of a timeline based on the idea of Bush Sr. getting re-elected in 92. Before starting this I wanted to explore some questions I had and see where everyone stands on them.

It tends to be the concensus that it was Perot's run that took votes from Bush Sr. and let Clinton win. A simple solution would be to just not have Perot run. What I want to ask is what would make Perot not run. I could be wrong but I believe that one of the primary reasons Perot ran was because Bush Sr. broke his No New Taxes promise made in the 88 election. If Bush Sr. doesn't break that promise than I am sure Perot doesn't run. But that leads us to whole other mess of what would happen if he didn't raise taxes.

I'm afriad, having been born in 1990, my knowledge of 90's politics is limited. So what was the background of the situation that led Bush to breaking his no new taxes pledge? What would have been the political ramnifications for sticking to his guns? Does this battle effect the Gulf War?
 
Watch PBS's American Experience documentary on G.H.W. Bush. It's free online. That's a good starting point for research, but if you're going to make a really impressive timeline than you'll need to read some books on the '92 election (Mad as Hell: Revolt at the Ballot Box is a good one) and on the major figures involved.

Secondly, empirical evidence suggests that Perot's support was evenly divided between those who would have voted for Bush and those who have voted for Clinton. Therefore, having him not run wouldn't help in a Bush-Clinton race.

The best way for Bush to win reelection IMO is for him to face a far weaker candidate than Clinton. How? Well the Gennifer Flowers story had a real chance to kill Clinton's candidacy in it's infancy. If he and Hillary hadn't been so deft in their handling of the scandal than it's possible Bill fairs really poorly in the New Hampshire primary. Instead of finishing in a strong second place behind Paul Tsongas, he finishes in third behind Bob Kerrey and just barely ahead of Tom Harkin. The race goes on to become a contest between Tsongas and Kerrey. Neither candidate would be ideal for a general election race, and Bush narrowly eaks out a victory over the Democrat and Perot.
 
Well for one the Republicans don't take control of Congress in the 1994 off year elections and hold Congress for the next 12 years.

His son is never elected either President or even governor of Texas in all likelihood.

A Democrat is almost certainly elected president in 1996 in reaction to 16 straight years of Republican presidents.s

JEB Bush is elected president in 2000 or 2004 (he was the first rising star in the Bush family after his father).
 
Well for one the Republicans don't take control of Congress in the 1994 off year elections and hold Congress for the next 12 years.

His son is never elected either President or even governor of Texas in all likelihood.

A Democrat is almost certainly elected president in 1996 in reaction to 16 straight years of Republican presidents.s

JEB Bush is elected president in 2000 or 2004 (he was the first rising star in the Bush family after his father).

If we see President Jeb Bush here in one of those years, it's more likely to be in 2004 rather than 2000. Perhaps I'm extrapolating from events from what in this timeline would be Bush's first term, but it's hard to imagine either of the sons running for office while their father is still in the White House. In 1990, George W. Bush strongly considered running for Governor of Texas, and the idea was almost universally condemned within the family. Given how the family reacted to the Bush 1990 idea, I'm not sure they'd be happy with Jeb 1994. Also, 1994 is a midterm year, which isn't a friendly situation for incumbents. Given demographic shifts, Republicans probably do well, but there's a difference between being such and such with an R attached to the name and literally being the President's son in a midterm election.

Given TTL circumstances, I think Jeb waits until 1998. If that's the case, if he wins, he's not going to be in a position to run for President in 2000. To do that, he has to start preparing as he's beginning his Governorship. Also, Bush Sr here leaves office in 1997, just three years before the 2000 election. I don't think the American public would be ready for another Bush that quickly, it'd be like W running against Clinton in 1996, too soon. Though admittedly, that's a fun scenario to imagine.
 
Secondly, empirical evidence suggests that Perot's support was evenly divided between those who would have voted for Bush and those who have voted for Clinton. Therefore, having him not run wouldn't help in a Bush-Clinton race.

I remain committed to the theory that Perot drew in a lot of people that would not have otherwise voted, and once he left the race in the Summer the vast majority of them moved to Clinton, and many of them did not come back even when Ross jumped back into the race.
 
If the PoD is Bush keeping his No New Taxes pledge, how might this effect the situation in the middle east? With Congress as divided as it was over the deficit issue, how might that effect their actions involving Iraq?
 

I remain committed to the theory that Perot drew in a lot of people that would not have otherwise voted, and once he left the race in the Summer the vast majority of them moved to Clinton, and many of them did not come back even when Ross jumped back into the race.

Perhaps, but I haven't seen any evidence that backs that up. It makes sense though.
 
Top