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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'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.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'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.
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.
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?
I think that's the overlap between party fatigue and the rule of thumb that a chief executive has a ten year shelf life.It's generally difficult to make it 16 years without making big mistakes the other party and the public will hold you accountable for.