what would a second term for Bush be like?
- Thread starter kodak
- Start date
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
On the motif that only-Nixon-could-go-to-China, without a Democrat in the Whitehouse, 'welfare reform' probably doesn't get momentum and come down the pipeline, a 'reform' which works okay during economic good times, but sure hurts during economic down times.
One thing is for certain. The GOP would not retake congress in 1994. They took control OTL largely because of the Assault weapons ban (the nra put a ton of money into Republican congressional campaigns), and Clinton's failed attempt of Health care reform. With Bush in the White House, none of that happens, nor does the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (unfortunately) so that along with the fact that the president's party almost always loses in congress gives the Democrats another 4 years.
Internationally, Bush started the intervention in Somalia in December of 1992 before he left office, I'd imagine we'd be there through 1993 like in OTL. While it still isn't a victory for the U.S., it doesn't have a messy ending like it did in OTL thanks to Clinton's failed attempt at nation building. Outside of possible intervention in Rwanda and possibly not intervening in Bosnia, things go the same way as they did under Clinton, especially in Iraq as Clinton continued much of Bush 41's policies there IOTL.
Economically, Bush catches the early years of the dotcom boom, so the economy is still good from about '94-97, but it might not be as strong as Bush being there for a second term might cause the markets to respond slightly different. The Supreme Court goes further to the right under Bush as well as he's going to have to make to appointments in the court in '93 and '94.
1996 is probably going to go to the Democrats (Gore, Cuomo, Gephardt, Richards if she gets re elected, or Slick Willy himself depending on why and how badly he lost in '92 TTL). The GOP nominates Dole like OTL, or a more experienced and less gaffe prone Vice President Quayle.
Internationally, Bush started the intervention in Somalia in December of 1992 before he left office, I'd imagine we'd be there through 1993 like in OTL. While it still isn't a victory for the U.S., it doesn't have a messy ending like it did in OTL thanks to Clinton's failed attempt at nation building. Outside of possible intervention in Rwanda and possibly not intervening in Bosnia, things go the same way as they did under Clinton, especially in Iraq as Clinton continued much of Bush 41's policies there IOTL.
Economically, Bush catches the early years of the dotcom boom, so the economy is still good from about '94-97, but it might not be as strong as Bush being there for a second term might cause the markets to respond slightly different. The Supreme Court goes further to the right under Bush as well as he's going to have to make to appointments in the court in '93 and '94.
1996 is probably going to go to the Democrats (Gore, Cuomo, Gephardt, Richards if she gets re elected, or Slick Willy himself depending on why and how badly he lost in '92 TTL). The GOP nominates Dole like OTL, or a more experienced and less gaffe prone Vice President Quayle.
If the economy does end up much the same as OTL, how possible is it for the Republicans to win again? Especially if they nominate someone with more chances of winning like Kemp or Powell.
Admiral Halsey
Banned
Honestly i've never bought into the whole "voter fatigue" thing. Normally by the time one of the parties has been in power for 16 years something besides people wanting change is the driving force that gets the party removed from power. If things go OTL with the economy and such its not hard to see a situation where Republicans are in the White House from 1968-2000(maybe even 2004) with the the only break being the Carter years.
Probably doubly so if the Democrats nominate a liberal sweetheart like Cuomo since they can easily portray him as an out of touch liberal.
It's generally difficult to make it 16 years without making big mistakes the other party and the public will hold you accountable for. I think the only way Bush could have won in '92, without a POD before '88, would be a stronger response to the recession and a stronger or more left-leaning campaign by Perot.
Maybe if Nader ran in 1992? There were liberals probably upset with Clinton's centrism that would have voted in protest for a more high profile Green candidate.
I think George W. Bush would have felt less of a compulsion to "avenge" his father by running for governor and then president. The range of effects from this is of course staggering.
While I agree it isn't everything, I think there's some truth to "voter fatigue," and I think voter fatigue would be a contributing factor to a Democratic win in 1996 TTL. Despite what right wingers say, Reagan was no FDR and Bush was no Truman (and even Truman had to pull off an upset to win in '48). The only way I can see them losing it is if the GOP somehow got Powell to run or the Democrats nominate another George McGovern (which I guess is a possibility).
Plus, the markets might respond differently to four more years of a Republican in the White house. That doesn't mean the economy from '93-97 is going to be bad, but it may not be as good as it was under Clinton. Plus, how Bush handles congress may contribute to the outcome in '96 (I doubt the GOP will retake congress in 94 in this scenario, at least not the house).
Also, in a scenario where the GOP are in the White house from '68-2000 or 2004, I doubt they'd control congress.
I tend to agree with this. I've heard other people say this in other threads to.
The best chance for Bush would have been Perot staying out of the race.
In 1992, I think the Democrats were too interested in winning to care about ideological purity, with a few exceptions of course. After Mondale and Dukakis, they wanted to prevail, not just run a campaign.
Hey, maybe if GHWB wins re-election, Jerry Brown runs again in 1996 and somehow beats whoever the GOP puts up, THAT would be fun.
Admiral Halsey
Banned
I've always thought that Powell would've run in 96 if it wasn't for the fact he would've been going against a popular(well popular enough to insure that victory would've been fairly hard) incumbent. 96 with Bush having won reelection IMO means he runs meaning that the GOP would probably win in 96 and maybe even get Powell reelected in 00. Which if that happens might spell the end for the Democratic party as we know it.
I don't think it would end the Democratic party as we know it. At worst, they'd stay in control of at least one house of congress through the '90s and early 2000s and win the White House back no later than 2008. I doubt one party can control the White House for 36 out of 40 years.
Although if they take over after Powell in the 2004 election, being in charge during the financial crisis (although maybe it just gets completely butterflied away, who knows) would certainly severely hurt the party.
Also, on a more general note about Powell, his wife was the reason he didn't run. His wife wanted to divorce if he ran for President. Powell is also socially liberal so he would have trouble getting wide party support for a run.
Admiral Halsey
Banned
Given that they'd have pretty much run the entire gauntlet of candidate types by that point its not unreasonable to think a Democratic party that's been unable to win back the White House would begin to splinter.
The Democratic Party is big tent enough that they wouldn't have had a need to splinter. What could they possibly gain from that?
Admiral Halsey
Banned
Given that being out of power for so long would get enough people to start thinking that they're unelectable you'd get people wanting to start frest basically. Hell you'd see people saying the next time they do win back the White House that it was a fluke which if they don't win reelection would really drive that home.
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
I think that's the overlap between party fatigue and the rule of thumb that a chief executive has a ten year shelf life.