What the effects be of a two term Bush administration from (1989-1997)? Who would the Democrats and Repubs nominate in 1996? How would historians view the Bush administration?
Bush would be remembered for little of that besides Hussein. He didn't strike a final blow at the USSR and no one saw him as doing such. In fact, when the Berlin Wall collapsed and the Soviets fell, he gave a response to the matters emotionless enough to make Calvin Coolidge proud. He similarly wouldn't have been remembered fondly economically. The economy tanking into a recession and his rescind on a promise for "No new taxes" is what cost him the election in a big way, never mind that the recession came from Reaganomics of the previous 8 years, nor that the new taxes probably would have done far more to deal with economic matters than keeping onto that mantra would have (whereas a person can be smart, people are stupid. That's a tried and true rule and those two facts show it). He would have the Gulf war, and that'd be mostly it.I could see perhaps a successor being a Democrat, probably Clinton again. Bush would be remembered mostly for launching the final blow on the Soviets, beating back Saddam, and helping the U.S. Economy in a huge economic boom.
I don't think I can see Bush giving Perot any VP nod, nor am I sure Perot would have accepted it either.The way Bush would probably win would be to pick Ross Perot as VP in the 92' election. Although Perot didn't win any states, he won 20 Million votes, roughly 20% of the entire vote. If Perot is chosen as VP, probably most of those votes would go to Bush.
Firstly, I'm not sure those would be the nominees (Perot for the aforementioned reason). True, it'd take a centrist Democrat like Clinton in 1992 to give the Democrats a chance against Bush as they had in the OTL. But, this'd be 1996. I'd posit Bush's approval would be luke warm at best by this point, and that 16 years of Republicans and one that doesn't have too much pizazz ending that out would dampen the chances for Bush's successor, and if it is Quayle, the GOP is screwed no matter what and the Democrats could run a rubber duck against him and win. I don't see how Gore would screw up the economy if it is him. Similarly, I doubt Bush Jr. will see the same career, let alone the same chance in 2000.For a 1997 election, I could see Perot running for the Republicans, and maybe Al Gore for the Dems. It would be a close race, probably a Gore victory. Gore would mess up the American economy, and loose to Bush Jr. in 2000, in a very close race. Bush Jr. takes two terms, and unknown from then.
I could see perhaps a successor being a Democrat, probably Clinton again. Bush would be remembered mostly for launching the final blow on the Soviets, beating back Saddam, and helping the U.S. Economy in a huge economic boom.
The way Bush would probably win would be to pick Ross Perot as VP in the 92' election. Although Perot didn't win any states, he won 20 Million votes, roughly 20% of the entire vote. If Perot is chosen as VP, probably most of those votes would go to Bush.
For a 1997 election, I could see Perot running for the Republicans, and maybe Al Gore for the Dems. It would be a close race, probably a Gore victory. Gore would mess up the American economy, and loose to Bush Jr. in 2000, in a very close race. Bush Jr. takes two terms, and unknown from then.