WI Ross Perot doesnt drop out and reenter

burmafrd

Banned
If he does not pull out, I think the most important possibility is that he prevents Clinton from getting enough electoral votes to win. And thus the election goes to the House of representatives. BUT since the Dems have full control there he wins anyway.
 
If he does not pull out, I think the most important possibility is that he prevents Clinton from getting enough electoral votes to win. And thus the election goes to the House of representatives. BUT since the Dems have full control there he wins anyway.

True that Clinton still ends up as the President; his political clout will initially be weaker for lacking a strong "mandate from the people," but I'd be surprised if an able politician like Clinton couldn't recover from that pretty quickly.

The most interesting effect is probably a much stronger effort by both parties to court the Perot voters, who clearly have enough power to become shift the outcome of elections.
 
The most interesting effect is probably a much stronger effort by both parties to court the Perot voters, who clearly have enough power to become shift the outcome of elections.

Actually both Clinton and Newt Gingrich paid a lot of attention in courting Perot voters, and they (along with Southern Democrat retirements) were a key reason the 1994 midterms were so favourable to the Republicans.

Perot voters were mostly progressives—i.e. people who want reform, be it conservative or liberal, they want a) government to work & b) nobody to get screwed—be it by the government, or by corporations.
 
Perot would have gotten around 25% of the popular vote and probably picked up a state or two. However he would gained few electoral college votes and either Clinto or Bush would have gotten well above the necessary 270 votes.
 
Well let's say he does pick up about 25% of the vote, and sends the election into the house of Representatives. Clinton will still get the presidency, but I think most importantly I think we will have a stronger Reform Party as well, possibly picking up seats in the House and cut into Newt's Revolution...It's hard to tell how Perot does in'96
 
I think Perot could've won, but I'm no American and don't have that detailed knowledge about your politics.

Could America see its first coalition government? Between whom?
 
I think Perot could've won, but I'm no American and don't have that detailed knowledge about your politics.

Could America see its first coalition government? Between whom?

The Reform Party didn't run Congressional candidates—it was just Perot, his ego, and his 65.4 million dollars.

Winning the Presidency is simple—get 270 electoral votes and you're in, if nobody gets 270 the House of Representatives votes with each state as one vote. (I'd have to check, because controlling the House isn't enough but Clinton would likely win in the House.)


Now if Perot had managed to gin up 435 House candidates and maybe a few Senate candidates I could see some House people winning—but I doubt it would be enough to drop the Democrats into a position of being a minority party in the House (although still larger than the Republicans, with Reform holding the balance of power).
 

oberdada

Gone Fishin'
The only interesting thing if Perot would have won, would have been, to have a guy called James Bond (Stockdale) VP of the USA.

It was probably Perots bigest mistake, I guess a lot of people thought that he might be assasinated, and than his running mate, in her majesties secret service would return Britsh rule.:D
 
I think Perot could've won, but I'm no American and don't have that detailed knowledge about your politics.

As someone who has devoted a lot of time to learning about and observing American political machinery at work, I dont think that Perot has much of a chance short of campaign ending gaffes by bush and/or clinton. however, early 90s american politics are not exactly my specialty, so feel free to correct me; but my impression is that Perot may swing the election either way but cannot win in his own right.

Could America see its first coalition government? Between whom?

Interesting idea. The problem is, American politics are really not as well suited to coalition politics as, say, the westminster system. In american politics, the president, as head of state, has more extensive powers then his counterparts in other nations, and is elected directly by the people (sort of) as opposed to by parlimentary representatives. The President is, in fact, the head of government. The two coequal houses can cause some form of coalitions (usually when one party controls the house and another the senate), but that becomes more realpolitik and compromise then true coalitions like what we see in Israel.
 
Clinton will win in the House of Representative vote since Democrats are the majority means Clinton has lacked of mandate of the voters since 50% of Perot votes would go to Bush.
 
Well let's say he does pick up about 25% of the vote, and sends the election into the house of Representatives. Clinton will still get the presidency, but I think most importantly I think we will have a stronger Reform Party as well, possibly picking up seats in the House and cut into Newt's Revolution...It's hard to tell how Perot does in'96
I was speculating what most likely would have happened in this scenario, but lets say for arguments sake Perot carries a few states so that he gets 39 electoral votes and, as a result, neither Bush nor Clinton gets the necessary 270 votes. So Clinton gets 241 electoral votes and Bush gets 258 votes and leads Clinton by a popular vote margin of 465,000 votes. It goes to the house of representatives, so who becomes the next president?
 
Clinton will win in the House of Representative vote since Democrats are the majority means Clinton has lacked of mandate of the voters since 50% of Perot votes would go to Bush.

Let's try this again: the House votes on a per state basis on this issue, not on a per member basis. New York? One vote. Montana? One vote.

Furthermore a lot of House Democrats were conservative (the House generally had a conservative majority of Republicans + Southern Democrats post-1966) and are by no means assured to support Clinton.


A quick count gives me 34 nominally Democratic states and 7 Split states of the 102nd Congress. Which should mean an easy victory for Clinton. However the Republicans are (historically) far better at controlling their caucus than Democrats… in a scenario where Bush is closer to 270 or wins the popular vote or both—I wouldn't rely on a lot of those Democratic Congressmen.
 
It's been awhile since US government class, but I thought the Presidency only went to the house after the electoral college voted. The election is in November. Lets say for arguments sake that Perot finishes with 30%, Clinton with 38%, and Bush with 33%. Lets also say that no candidate can claim a majority of the electoral votes. The Electoral College doesn't meet until many weeks after the election. Perot could, in theory, pledge his electors to either candidate and singlehandedly decide the election. A corrupt bargain ala 1824, Bush is pledged the electors in exchange for killing NAFTA and supporting Perot as the GOP nominee in 1996. I think that would be Perot's best bet.
 
It's been awhile since US government class, but I thought the Presidency only went to the house after the electoral college voted. The election is in November. Lets say for arguments sake that Perot finishes with 30%, Clinton with 38%, and Bush with 33%. Lets also say that no candidate can claim a majority of the electoral votes. The Electoral College doesn't meet until many weeks after the election. Perot could, in theory, pledge his electors to either candidate and singlehandedly decide the election. A corrupt bargain ala 1824, Bush is pledged the electors in exchange for killing NAFTA and supporting Perot as the GOP nominee in 1996. I think that would be Perot's best bet.

Technically electors can vote for whoever the heck they want. (Faithless electors, such as the guy that voted for Reagan in '76 are uncommon, to be sure, but it happens, and only 24 states punish faithless electors.)

I'm not sure Bush & Perot could make such a deal, frankly, given that Bush would not be obliged to actually follow it once in office. Also, just because Bush would back Perot in '96 in the GOP primaries certainly does not mean that Perot would said primaries.
 
Now...If Perot does stay in the election for the entire course of the process...They were several states that he came in second, that he may have won...like Utah and Maine...and a few that he came in a close third,...But I say might Perot have more leverage with lets say 25%-35% percentage of the popular vote? Could he push and get more Reform seats into the House and possibly to the senate to boulster his run in 96?
 
Now...If Perot does stay in the election for the entire course of the process...They were several states that he came in second, that he may have won...like Utah and Maine...and a few that he came in a close third,...But I say might Perot have more leverage with lets say 25%-35% percentage of the popular vote? Could he push and get more Reform seats into the House and possibly to the senate to boulster his run in 96?

He wouldn't have leverage (losers never have leverage in US Presidential politics), he didn't care about Congressional candidates, and he's nuts to boot.

(Now sure, a more successful Perot would see both the Democrats and Republicans going even harder after Perot voters than IOTL…*but they wouldn't care about Perot—both sides knew he was nuts after the '92 election.)

Assuming that he did want to build a base (and, you know, listened to the words his advisors were telling him) yeah he could get some House seats… but having House seats sure didn't help the Progressive Party any and I doubt it would help him in a '96 bid.
 
Top