U.S. election 1992 without Perot

Thande

Donor
What if Ross Perot had permanently pulled out of the U.S. presidential election in 1992 as he did OTL before re-entering the race? How do you think the contest would have gone as a more traditional two-party struggle? Basically assume Perot is off the ballot in most states and only picks up a few write-in votes.

On the one hand for a Bush victory you've got: incumbency; the general assumption that Perot attracted more Republican than Democratic voters OTL; the persistent perception that the Democrats were disorganised and had no chance.

For a Clinton victory you've got: the economy, stupid; the idea that the Republicans were responsible for pressuring Perot to quit ; more charismatic than Bush.

Opinions?
 
Narrower Clinton victory, even if the recession was a fairly mild one. Bush had already been the second VP to win a third consecutive term for his party, a fourth would inevitably fail due to GOP fatigue- the mild recession was an excuse. Conservatives would still be pissed about "read my lips" regardless. Then there was the widespread perception that Bush just didn't care about domestic policy, which was true: it didn't and never did interest him as President.
 

Thande

Donor
Narrower Clinton victory, even if the recession was a fairly mild one.

I forgot to mention Republican fatigue, yes...however one knock-on effect of this is that Clinton will presumably win with a majority of the popular vote, if a narrow one, which may make him harder for the Republicans to attack in 1992-94.
 
Map time.

genusmap.php


Clinton/Gore: 334 EV, 52.6%
Bush/Quayle: 204 EV, 47.3%
 
I forgot to mention Republican fatigue, yes...however one knock-on effect of this is that Clinton will presumably win with a majority of the popular vote, if a narrow one, which may make him harder for the Republicans to attack in 1992-94.

If Clinton goes against his natural centrism to appease the base, which was already pissed at losing the 20+ year civil war (which Clinton himself admits as the major strategic error of his presidency in My Life) as per OTL with the Hillarycare and DADT messes, then he'll still get massacred in '94. Some of Gingrich's choicier quotes such as "counterculture McGoverniks" to use one of his milder epithets may not be around, but the GOP will still be as venomous as ever. Their tinfoilers will still hold hearings on Vince Foster for example.
 
i think RB is right that Clinton would win a closer race. I live in a very conservative state. Bush won it. But it was closer than normal. The Perot people just would not have voted. What happensd though if Bush got rid of Qualyle and put Powell on the ticket? I say Bush wins.
 

Thande

Donor
If Clinton goes against his natural centrism to appease the base, which was already pissed at losing the 20+ year civil war (which Clinton himself admits as the major strategic error of his presidency in My Life) as per OTL with the Hillarycare and DADT messes, then he'll still get massacred in '94. Some of Gingrich's choicier quotes such as "counterculture McGoverniks" to use one of his milder epithets may not be around, but the GOP will still be as venomous as ever. Their tinfoilers will still hold hearings on Vince Foster for example.

But the Republicans would have to use a different attack strategy: they would have to acknowledge Clinton's popular vote victory. I think a plausible way of doing it would be for them to claim that Clinton had been elected as a centrist but was governing as a far-leftie (bollocks, but then this is America we're talking about here).
 

Thande

Donor
When did they switch the colours? :confused:

The Republican red Democratic blue thing (which is pretty illogical considering most conventions) only dates from the 2000 election, or so most people claim. Historically it's more that there was never any consensus than Republican blue Democratic red being the norm, but RB's using a US election maps website that uses that system.
 
The Republican red Democratic blue thing (which is pretty illogical considering most conventions) only dates from the 2000 election, or so most people claim. Historically it's more that there was never any consensus than Republican blue Democratic red being the norm, but RB's using a US election maps website that uses that system.
I have a Weekly World News article from the early nineties discussing Democrat plans to paint the White House blue so it has to be older than 2000.
 

Thande

Donor
Nothing will really change.

So, it's an exciting POD indeed.
A lot will change, it's just subtler than most. In the short term, my comments above about Clinton winning the popular vote. In the long term, no Reform Party movement, which means a close 1996/2000 election such as OTL's 2000 cannot be blamed on the Reform candidate.
 
Those are minor statistical changes, which are pretty much inherent in any electoral POD, and Buchanan may very well run in 2000 without a Reform Party. I would not call that "a lot."
 
Top