What if a Ross Perot presidency?

Faux Pas

Banned
He had a plurality of support (39%) at one point, so he may have won if he hadn't temporarily withdrawn, whic destroyed his campaign. Do you agree? And what would a Perot Presidency be like for America? An improvement from BC?
 
Jimmy Carterx10 the Congress will be so afraid of a thrid party that they'll block everything he tries to pass.
 
Jimmy Carterx10 the Congress will be so afraid of a thrid party that they'll block everything he tries to pass.

seconded, this is the Perot Presidency starting in 1993 yes? well maybe no DADT? where was Perot on gays in the Military? if he's pro (seems he would be) then with a fully opposed Congress he could pull a Truman. no Gore the 90s push for tech would be less (maybe). no NAFT, or Brady Bill, no AmeriCorps volunteer program, no Federal Assault Weapons Ban, no Line Item Veto Act of 1996, no Defense of Marriage Act?

also, in OTL Clinton appointed his two justices in the first term, note that Byron White and Harry A. Blackmun would both live a few years after leaving the court, so with Perot as President would ether of them leave the Court? and what would the court look like with them on it for at lest 4 more years?
 
Last edited:
And as a result of that, he'd be destroyed in the next election?

yes, more or less, thats the thought when we talk about this, really though, if his personal popularity is high he could form a new party and kick congress, given that people always hate the Congress
 
The only good things to come out of a Perot presidency would be no NAFTA and potentially a viable third party. The second's still only a long shot, since it probably wouldn't survive his presidency by more than one election cycle. But in the short term it'd attract reformers on both side of the aisle.
 
I have a map on my other computer that shows that if Perot had won every state in which he really got 20% plus Florida and one other (where he got like 18.5%) he would have won about 283 EVs.

Anyways, what would have come out of no NAFTA?
Would NAFTA have been created after the election of 1996 with Perot gone?
Has anyone every done a thorough account of the effects of no NAFTA on the national and world economy?
 
Actually, Clinton, Bush and Perot all agreed on line-item veto.
Perot would have pushed for better standards in education- he was on the Texas Governor's commission that raised standards in Texas- one which George W. Bush benefited from ex post facto. (Bush took the credit...though he had nothing to do with it...)
A Perot Presidency leaves out the fact that Perot wouldn't have favored open relations with Vietnam. Not sure how Perot would have handled foreign policy. Perot may have been sympathetic to Gore's "Reinventing Government" proposals, since he favors a balanced budget and less regulation. And, lest we forget, Perot ran EDS, so he would favor more tech investment.
I'm not sure how Perot would handle the military or how the peace dividend would work out. (Perot may not favor NATO expansion, which would mean better relations with Russia down the road.) I know the Special Operations Forces would definitely get a big boost in their budget. I'm not sure how he would handle Iraq, though Perot may go a bit easier on them, so they can be back to deter Iran. (Perhaps Perot would listen to Hussein Kamil in 1995?)
Everyone is leaving out the biggest change from Perot. His election would give "outsider" candidates a better chance at the Oval Office- or any office. Perhaps we could see more celebrities in politics. (Nader would certainly get more attention in 1996 and 2000...)
 
Perot would have pushed for better standards in education- he was on the Texas Governor's commission that raised standards in Texas- one which George W. Bush benefited from ex post facto. (Bush took the credit...though he had nothing to do with it...)

And Texas education and TX politics are still trying to recover from it. The "raising standards" is basically straitjacketing teachers so they have to teach to a standardized test, and can't teach virtually anything else. In fact they have to file paperwork detailing every quarter hour of every class they taught. Not much evidence it's improved anything for students. It's common for teachers to help their students cheat on the tests, handing out the answers while the testing's going on.

The way he passed it is instructive. He used his own money to lobby and got together with every special interest group and they bulldozed it thru the legislature. That's part of why I'm skeptical of the claim that Perot would be a failure at getting anything passed. He'd probably get most of what he wanted passed. But if it followed the patterns we saw in Texas it'd likely be legislation that sounds good in sound bites but doesn't do much.
 
No matter how good or bad the term is, the most important thing is that national level politics gets a big shake up. I doubt reform would happen, but it would break the stalemate that seems to be happening now.
 
If Congress blocks popular measures out of sheer territoriality (hating on 3rd Parties), could Perot use that against them politically?
 
Top