WI: No Reagan, but Bush in the 1980s?

What if Reagan didn't run in the 1980s for presidency? I don't think I could see him lose to Bush senior or Jimmy Carter. So instead, what if George H.W. Bush was our president in the 80s and how could that affect things?

Bush Sr. didn't believe in supply side economics so we could be spared the "voodoo economics" and from the video i saw that inspired this, Bush Sr. was not as hamfisted with the religious stuff, so the religious right probably would not be as prominent, least for the mainstream.

Though I do wonder who would become president in '88?
 
from the video i saw that inspired this, Bush Sr. was not as hamfisted with the religious stuff, so the religious right probably would not be as prominent, least for the mainstream.

Well, we ARE talking about the president who appointed Clarence Thomas to the SCOTUS, that particular body being where the culture-wars are ultimately played out.

Granted, Bush Sr. put relative-liberal Souter on the bench as well, but then, Reagan also had GLBQT stalwart Kennedy. (Though that one was after he failed to get Bork on.)

Bush Sr. was also heavily pounding the drums for an anti-flag burning amendment. Not technically a religious issue, but definitely a culture-war flashpoint.
 
Well, we ARE talking about the president who appointed Clarence Thomas to the SCOTUS, that particular body being where the culture-wars are ultimately played out.

Granted, Bush Sr. put relative-liberal Souter on the bench as well, but then, Reagan also had GLBQT stalwart Kennedy. (Though that one was after he failed to get Bork on.)

Bush Sr. was also heavily pounding the drums for an anti-flag burning amendment. Not technically a religious issue, but definitely a culture-war flashpoint.

I think Bush Sr was either trying to be Reagan's third term when he appointed Thomas or he was playing to the conservatives who were empowered after 8 years of Reagan.

Granted, culture war stuff and a lot of values politics started under Nixon, and I could see him continuing in that regard.
 
Had Reagan been assassinated on March 30, 1981, Bush Sr. would have had two almost-full terms. Supply side economics would have been an issue, since many of Reagan's proposals passed on sympathy votes after the shooting.
 
Bush was not a particularly prominent figure in 1980. Remember that his highest public office at that point was CIA Director. (Not typically a presidential launchpad.) And his only winning elections were two House races more than a decade earlier. His big began as a longshot. It got farther than expected because Reagan's support kept out other strong candidates who might have run, which meant Bush became the default candidate of relative moderates who distrusted Reagan.

Had Reagan not run for whatever reason it's unclear whether Bush would have been able to break from the pack. Don't forget that Gerald Ford wanted to run again, and would likely have done so without Reagan in the race. And Ford would likely have drawn most of Bush's support.
 
Had Reagan been assassinated on March 30, 1981, Bush Sr. would have had two almost-full terms. Supply side economics would have been an issue, since many of Reagan's proposals passed on sympathy votes after the shooting.

The point was not Reagan being assassinated. He just doesn't become president. If we need a reason, let's say his health decliens faster and professional and loved oned opinions convince him to retire from politics for his health.

Bush was not a particularly prominent figure in 1980. Remember that his highest public office at that point was CIA Director. (Not typically a presidential launchpad.) And his only winning elections were two House races more than a decade earlier. His big began as a longshot. It got farther than expected because Reagan's support kept out other strong candidates who might have run, which meant Bush became the default candidate of relative moderates who distrusted Reagan.

Had Reagan not run for whatever reason it's unclear whether Bush would have been able to break from the pack. Don't forget that Gerald Ford wanted to run again, and would likely have done so without Reagan in the race. And Ford would likely have drawn most of Bush's support.

What would've Ford done if he won then?
 

Wallet

Banned
Bush was not a particularly prominent figure in 1980. Remember that his highest public office at that point was CIA Director. (Not typically a presidential launchpad.) And his only winning elections were two House races more than a decade earlier. His big began as a longshot. It got farther than expected because Reagan's support kept out other strong candidates who might have run, which meant Bush became the default candidate of relative moderates who distrusted Reagan.

Had Reagan not run for whatever reason it's unclear whether Bush would have been able to break from the pack. Don't forget that Gerald Ford wanted to run again, and would likely have done so without Reagan in the race. And Ford would likely have drawn most of Bush's support.
Well, Bush was very well known and liked by Republican leadership. He was seriously considered for VP by Nixon after Agnew resigned, and almost picked by Ford in 1976.
 
You need to first see Bush’s Vice President pick and cabinet:
Potential VP:
- Senate, Lowell P. Weicker Jr. from Connecticut
- Congressman, JohnB. Anderson or Phil Crane from Illinois
- Representative Jack Kemp of New York
- Senator Charles Mathias of Maryland
 
You need to first see Bush’s Vice President pick and cabinet:
Potential VP:
- Senate, Lowell P. Weicker Jr. from Connecticut
- Congressman, JohnB. Anderson or Phil Crane from Illinois
- Representative Jack Kemp of New York
- Senator Charles Mathias of Maryland

Well, who would've been his running mate then? I would say Dole, but I don't know.
 
Well, who would've been his running mate then? I would say Dole, but I don't know.
A Texas and Kansas ticket in 1980 seems a little too close, especially with Dole and Bush, both being conservatives, I imagine having "liberal republican" like Mathias or Weicker would balance the ticket nicely.
 
A Texas and Kansas ticket in 1980 seems a little too close, especially with Dole and Bush, both being conservatives, I imagine having "liberal republican" like Mathias or Weicker would balance the ticket nicely.

Well all righty then. I guess given just how much of an influence Reagan was on the political spectrum, it'd be interesting to see who would be it to for the 1980s. So, let's say Bush and Weicker then?
 
A Texas and Kansas ticket in 1980 seems a little too close, especially with Dole and Bush, both being conservatives, I imagine having "liberal republican" like Mathias or Weicker would balance the ticket nicely.
There was little appetite for liberals like Matthias and Weicker in the 1980 GOP. Depending on how the primaries go (i.e. whether he runs as a conservative or a moderate), Bush might either go with someone more moderate like John B. Anderson or a conservative to appease the 1976 Reagan supporters.
 
Bush was not a particularly prominent figure in 1980. Remember that his highest public office at that point was CIA Director. (Not typically a presidential launchpad.) And his only winning elections were two House races more than a decade earlier. His big began as a longshot. It got farther than expected because Reagan's support kept out other strong candidates who might have run, which meant Bush became the default candidate of relative moderates who distrusted Reagan.

Uh, provided you ignore the party establishment being more favourable to Howard Baker?

Bush had a solid campaign, particularly in Iowa, that was really what underpinned that early boom, not because he was the default option of the establishment. I think people forget how it was still the relatively early days of the primary system, and it was still possible to run an utterly counter-intuitively disastrous campaign like Dole did. (Admittedly, Bob Dole never mastered campaigning)

Agreed that if Reagan falls off his horse in 1979 and Ford wants it again then he's way out in front, though.
 
Uh, provided you ignore the party establishment being more favourable to Howard Baker?

Bush had a solid campaign, particularly in Iowa, that was really what underpinned that early boom, not because he was the default option of the establishment. I think people forget how it was still the relatively early days of the primary system, and it was still possible to run an utterly counter-intuitively disastrous campaign like Dole did. (Admittedly, Bob Dole never mastered campaigning)

Agreed that if Reagan falls off his horse in 1979 and Ford wants it again then he's way out in front, though.

All right then, how would it look like? Reagan was an influential figure so looking at how Bush or Ford would’ve done things different is a big change not just for the 80s, but beyond.
 
Top