WI: 1992 a repeat of 1912

JoeMulk

Banned
What if in 1992 Ross Perot had stayed in the race and it had ended up between him and Clinton with Bush finishing a distant third?
 
Yes, Clinton wins, I think that is implicit in the title. The real question is what happens in the next few years. Perot may be a bit more prominent figure in Clinton's opposition. Bush is even more discredited in that sort of situation, and this timeline probably requires an even more disliked Bush in 1992. Or President Quayle or something. Point is, both W and Jeb could conceivable lose in 1994, even with the Republican surge nationwide. If their father is unpopular enough to come in third two years before, perhaps that will extend to them. I can see Perot being an even more vocal critic of President Clinton. Where this really gets interesting is 1996. Conceivably, after coming in second place, Perot's fall from popularity could still leave him a factor in that election. Maybe he does well enough to push the election to the House, and then you have a "Chaos" scenario. Clinton may win the popular vote, win the most votes in the electoral college, and still end up a one termer thanks to Gingrich's congress handing over the Presidency to former Senator Dole. Of course that means that Perot has to do considerably better, so there's a plausibility issue there. Still third party runs can't really win, they can only throw the election to the House, so let's say that happens.

Now, if Dole loses the election, and then is declared President by the Republican dominated House. The Democrats will be out for blood in 1998 and 2000. This is one of the few times a Cleaveland scenario reaches the outskirts of plausibility. After all, Clinton can make a good argument that he was the people's choice in 1996. But yeah, Cleaveland scenarios aren't that plausible. Point is, the Democrats are going to be very very energized after that kind of outcome. Despite incumbency, I predict Gore defeats Dole in 2000. So three one term Presidencies in a row!
 
Yes, Clinton wins, I think that is implicit in the title. The real question is what happens in the next few years. Perot may be a bit more prominent figure in Clinton's opposition.

But Perot doesn't have a bully pulpit in Congress or a State House from which to be the voice of opposition. All he can do is pop up on TV from time to time, for as long as producers are willing to indulge him. His views carry more weight than the average TV pundit, but that is still all he would be - a TV pundit.

I think the real difference is going to be, not just Bush discredited, but potentially the whole GOP establishment. So they're going to be looking for an insurgent candidate in 1996, not Bob Dole.
 
Top