what would a second term for Bush be like?

[Electric Monk]

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.

They didn't IOTL, take a look at their Civil War to pre-FDR record. America only allows herself two political parties, losing 4 Presidential elections in a row isn't going to change that.

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.

Colin Powell could not make it through the Republican primaries in 1996, barring incredibly unlikely events occurring. He would certainly stand a good to really good chance of winning against Clinton or whoever and becoming President, no question, but the primaries are basically insurmountable.

The best chance for Bush would have been Perot staying out of the race.

The various political science papers I've read on the subject are in unusual agreement that Perot basically split votes equally between the two and would not, surprisingly, have changed the outcome. However if you wanna talk about the impact on the campaign and news media that he had by entering, that is certainly a broader and less settled question.

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.

Eh. Depends. IOTL 1994 was the end of the line for Southern Democrats, plus Newt and friends was smart enough to bring MARS (Perot) voters--who were very liberal on spending and anti-NAFTA and anti-corporate, but against helping poor and black people and disliked Washington folk--into the party. Is Newt still smart enough to pull that off with Bush in the White House? Well, no, probably not but 1992-96 was a major realignment in American politics that Bush keeping the White House may not change too much.

 

[David T]

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.

Clinton won by 5.5 percent. It is extremely unlikely Nader would get that many votes, and unlikelier still that all of them would come from Clinton--some would come from Bush and Perot. (Note that Perot was already attacking NAFTA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_sucking_sound) Even in 2000, according to a study based on the actual ballots of Nader voters for non-presidential races, Nader voters in Florida would only have broken for Gore over Bush by about 60-40. http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/lewis/pdf/greenreform9.pdf)

 

[David T]

Eh. Depends. IOTL 1994 was the end of the line for Southern Democrats, plus Newt and friends was smart enough to bring MARS (Perot) voters--who were very liberal on spending and anti-NAFTA and anti-corporate, but against helping poor and black people and disliked Washington folk--into the party. Is Newt still smart enough to pull that off with Bush in the White House? Well, no, probably not but 1992-96 was a major realignment in American politics that Bush keeping the White House may not change too much.

It's not a matter of whether Gingrich was "smart enough." (Incidentally, polls showed that most voters hadn't heard of the Contract with America, and those who had weren't particularly impressed by it.) Rather, the point is that when American voters during midterms are dissatisfied with the condition of the country they take it out on the party controlling the White House, not the one controlling Congress. Period.

Are there any exceptions? I can't think of any. Yes, in 1934, 1998, and 2002 the party controlling the White House gained seats in the House, though never very many. But those were the results of *satisfaction* not dissatisfaction with the state of the country. In 1934 voters thought that the economy, though still depressed, was improving, and rightly or wrongly attributed it to FDR. In 1998, they thought Clinton was doing a good job as president (however they disapproved of his personal conduct) and opposed the GOP attempt to impeach him. In 2002, they rallied behind GW Bush because of the War on Terror.

So why in 1994 are they going to suddenly defy all history and take their dissatisfaction out on the party *not* controlling the White House--and moreover do so to a *massive* extent (since the GOP is not likely to come anywhere near controlling the House in 1992 even if Bush wins, any more than they did in 1988--and therefore the gain of more than a few seats is required)?

The Perot voters and southern Democrats who voted Republican in 1994 did so because they disapproved of Clinton's first two years in the presidency. Without that, you get an entirely different situation. If voters are as dissatisfied as they were in OTL they are far more likely to take it out on the Republicans than on the Democrats. If OTOH the voters are satisfied, few seats are likely to change hands and the Democrats will retain control of Congress fairly easily.

 

[Timmy811]

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.

The Democrats were about as helpless in the late 19th through early 20th century, only winning when great internal conflict in the GOP occured. They never came close to splinterring.

 

[David T]

The Democrats were about as helpless in the late 19th through early 20th century, only winning when great internal conflict in the GOP occured. They never came close to splinterring.

That was also true of the GOP in the New Deal-Fair Deal era--it lost *five* presidential elections in a row, which is more than the Democrats would have if they lost in 1992. Yet it never came close to splintering. (And in a way, it was worse off than the Democrats of 1980-1992, because at least they controlled the House and after 1986 the Senate; the GOP never controlled either house in 1932-52 except in 1946-48.)

 

[Electric Monk]

So why in 1994 are they going to suddenly defy all history and take their dissatisfaction out on the party *not* controlling the White House--and moreover do so to a *massive* extent (since the GOP is not likely to come anywhere near controlling the House in 1992 even if Bush wins, any more than they did in 1988--and therefore the gain of more than a few seats is required)?

The Perot voters and southern Democrats who voted Republican in 1994 did so because they disapproved of Clinton's first two years in the presidency. Without that, you get an entirely different situation. If voters are as dissatisfied as they were in OTL they are far more likely to take it out on the Republicans than on the Democrats. If OTOH the voters are satisfied, few seats are likely to change hands and the Democrats will retain control of Congress fairly easily.

? I wasn't assuming anything of the sort, merely throwing out reasons why it might not be as simple as predicted. I happen to agree with you, Bush in office will (briefly) delay the loss of the South outside majority black districts to the GOP, and likewise Perot voters probably won't vote ('94 midterms went up in turn-out from '90) which does mean the Democratic Party keeps the House.

(On the Contract polling was pretty good actually [PDF], 36% of those polled had heard of it (keep in mind that the 1994 election had 38.8% turnout, presumably those who had heard of the Contract were those more politically informed and thus more likely to vote, indeed arguably nearly everyone who voted had heard of the Contract. Oh yes, and it was 64% popular.)

 

[mr.bernham]

Big changes:

Long-term the GOP stays more moderate. Without people like Gingrich and Bush II, the Republicans stay more moderate and center right.

I would say that markets do slightly better than in OTL. Markets are conservative to an extent and with a stable GOP governance I could see the economy doing well.

In 1996 I would say Republicans win, with Bob Dole.

In 2000 I would say that Bill Clinton comes back, pulls a New Labour and rebrands the Democrats as a center left and modern party.

Democrats narrowly win 2004, but after handling the financial crisis in 2008 poorly Mitt Romney is elected and re-elected in 2008.

Brightside for America...Monica never happens.

 

[David T]

? (On the Contract polling was pretty good actually [PDF], 36% of those polled had heard of it (keep in mind that the 1994 election had 38.8% turnout, presumably those who had heard of the Contract were those more politically informed and thus more likely to vote, indeed arguably nearly everyone who voted had heard of the Contract. Oh yes, and it was 64% popular.)

Read the first page of the PDF more closely. The source of the 36% who had heard of it and its 64% popularity among them: "Survey by the Gallup Organization for CNN/USA Today, December 28-30, 1994." In other words, this was *after* the election, and *after* all the media chatter about how the Contract was a work of genius that had enabled the GOP to win the election.

Obviously, what matters is how many had heard of it by Election Day and what effect it had on their voting:

'Contemporaneous polls made clear that few even heard the words. In October 1994, 75 percent of voters told Gallup they had never heard of the Contract. A week before the election, the CBS/New York Times poll found 71 percent admitting they had heard nothing about the Contract.

"Analyzing his own pre-election poll, Andy Kohut concluded, “The much-ballyhooed Republican Contract with America has failed to do much to improve the prospects of Republican candidates. … Only 3 in 10 (29 percent) claimed to have heard about the document.”

"But did it move the few who knew? No. Kohut’s poll said 7 percent were more likely to vote Republican because of the Contract but 6 percent were less likely to do so. Gallup had 4 percent more likely to vote Republican but 5 percent lees likely to do so. The CBS/NYT results were nearly identical.

"Of course, Republicans did win big that year. But as with magic, the fact that something happens after the words are uttered is not evidence of causation.

"Writing shortly before the election, Charlie Cook exposed the fallacy: The Contract “has turned out to be a non-starter rather than the defining moment of the 1994 campaign. ... Before the contract was offered, this was going to be a very good year for Republicans; now that it has been out for a couple of weeks it is still going to be a very good year for Republicans.” http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/mark-mellman/8503-debunking-the-myths-of-the-contract

 

[Dayton Kitchens]

I think Bush would've pushed to go back into Iraq and take down Saddam Hussein rather than the repeated bombing attacks Clinton agreed to.

It was reportedly considered by the Bush Admin. in 1992.

 

[Orville_third]

I think Bush would've pushed to go back into Iraq and take down Saddam Hussein rather than the repeated bombing attacks Clinton agreed to.

It was reportedly considered by the Bush Admin. in 1992.

Well, there was the matter of the alleged attacks on Bush. Of course, we don't know how Bush and company would have done with UNSCOM/UNMOVIC, or how they would have reacted to Hussein Kamil's defection- or his remarks on Iraq's WMD being destroyed. (I think they'd keep the sanctions on, but admit to the destruction of WMD.)
One big foreign policy change would be the end of NATO. With the USSR breaking up under Bush, and the people who agreed no to push eastward still in power, I can see a lot of vacant office space in Brussels. (Of course, there's no reason for ad hoc alliances with the US and eastern European nations.)
Of course, OTL, Iran-Contra went nowhere after Bush pardoned some of those indicted- while Clinton didn't do anything to help Republican Lawrence Walsh. ITTL, if Bush pardoned the guys as OTL, we could see a LOT of upset voters, and 1994 being a rout of Republicans.

 

[Electric Monk]

Read the first page of the PDF more closely.

Hah, fair enough . Don't read stuff when tired, lol.

Well then that's actually an even more interesting scenario, with Newt coming up with the contract to appeal to '92 Perot voters and falling flat on his face. All kinds of implications for Bush's domestic agenda, the House leadership, oh and huge (until the Republicans take the House) differences in staffing levels / quality of staff compared to OTL, if only for a few years.