WI: Tsongas vs Bush in 1992

[Amadeus]

In 1992, former Massachusetts Senator Paul Tsongas was seen as a strong contender for the Democratic Presidential nomination. Yet although he won the New Hampshire primary, his narrow margin of victory over Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton was spun by the Clinton campaign as a triumph for the "comeback kid" who went on to win the nomination.

Tsongas was not especially charismatic, had fairly conservative views for a Democrat running for President, and was hampered by the legacy of Michael Dukakis - another Massachusetts Democrat who had lost to Bush four years prior. Yet Tsongas was able to gain traction with many voters due to his focus on the state of the economy, which became the predominant issue in the fall campaign.

The POD is Clinton, like most high-profile Democrats, looks at Bush's numbers and decides he is unbeatable. He sits out 1992 in anticipation for 1996. In Clinton's absence, Tsongas achieves a more decisive victory in the New Hampshire primary and he defeats Jerry Brown to become the presidential nominee. How does Tsongas fair against Bush in the general election?

 

[ejpsan]

Bush wins.
Tsongas appeal was mostly to the pundit class and middle class deficit hawks and he took advantage of Clinton's early stumbles with the Ginnifer Flowers' revelations and the "I didn't inhale" quote.
With that stated either Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa or Sen Bob Kerrey of Nebraska would have gotten the nomination.
Gov. Bill Clinton won because he was able to mobilize the African American base and enough appeal to the white working class to win.
If Clinton didn't run probably some other Southern White Democrat would have run.

 

[NedStark]

Perot might have endorsed Tsongas, or if he still ran, he would have damaged Republicans more than IOTL since much of the OTL Democratic Perot voters were Tsongas supporters.

With the state of the economy, Tsongas would have won. But he would have only served 1 term, or even died in office.

 

[calvim]

It's an interesting scenario. Iirc, Tsongas was not only more concerned with balancing a budget than most Dems, but also a staunch NAFTA supporter . While his time in office might not be radically different than Clinton on economic matters, his campaign will probably struggle to hit the same populist nerve Clinton did. Because of that, I think your first immediate result here is a stronger Perot campaign. Iirc, Tsongas was also fairly socially liberal, moreso than Clinton, and this might also lose more conservative voters to bush. Despite this factors, I still give Tsongas an edge due to bush still alienating a good chunk of his party, but a Tsongas winner would be respectable at best, if not a squeaker. Wouldn't be shocked if Perot wins a state or two too

 

[Amadeus]

It's an interesting scenario. Iirc, Tsongas was not only more concerned with balancing a budget than most Dems, but also a staunch NAFTA supporter . While his time in office might not be radically different than Clinton on economic matters, his campaign will probably struggle to hit the same populist nerve Clinton did. Because of that, I think your first immediate result here is a stronger Perot campaign. Iirc, Tsongas was also fairly socially liberal, moreso than Clinton, and this might also lose more conservative voters to bush. Despite this factors, I still give Tsongas an edge due to bush still alienating a good chunk of his party, but a Tsongas winner would be respectable at best, if not a squeaker. Wouldn't be shocked if Perot wins a state or two too

If Perot stays in the race he might have a shot at winning Maine, although Tsongas' New England roots may be enough to make up for Perot's populist appeal.

 

[NedStark]

If Perot stays in the race he might have a shot at winning Maine, although Tsongas' New England roots may be enough to make up for Perot's populist appeal.

But there are some accounts suggested that many of the Democrats who voted for Perot IOTL were Tsongas primary supporters. ITTL, perhaps most of these guys would have stuck with Tsongas.

 

[Amadeus]

But there are some accounts suggested that many of the Democrats who voted for Perot IOTL were Tsongas primary supporters. ITTL, perhaps most of these guys would have stuck with Tsongas.

If that is the case, the losses that Tsongas takes in the South (due to being a New Englander in contrast to "the Man from Hope") would be balanced out to a certain extent by the gains he makes from Perot supporters. However, Tsongas was a strong supporter of NAFTA and this was a core part of Perot's appeal.

 

[dw93]

I think Bush narrowly wins, winning all of the southern states Clinton carried in OTL, as well as CO and MT, and this is whether Perot still runs or not. Tsongas losing would have huge implications on the Democratic party post 1992, and thus I see the next Democratic President (most likely elected in 96, but no later than 2000) being much more economically populist, and more in the New Deal tradition, than Carter, Clinton, or Obama.

 

[Amadeus]

Bush wins.
Tsongas appeal was mostly to the pundit class and middle class deficit hawks and he took advantage of Clinton's early stumbles with the Ginnifer Flowers' revelations and the "I didn't inhale" quote.
With that stated either Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa or Sen Bob Kerrey of Nebraska would have gotten the nomination.
Gov. Bill Clinton won because he was able to mobilize the African American base and enough appeal to the white working class to win.
If Clinton didn't run probably some other Southern White Democrat would have run.

Who? Not Gore, he was focused on his family after his son nearly died.

 

[Amadeus]

I think Bush narrowly wins, winning all of the southern states Clinton carried in OTL, as well as CO and MT, and this is whether Perot still runs or not. Tsongas losing would have huge implications on the Democratic party post 1992, and thus I see the next Democratic President (most likely elected in 96, but no later than 2000) being much more economically populist, and more in the New Deal tradition, than Carter, Clinton, or Obama.

I do not understand why people assume Tsongas would lose. Bush's campaign was terrible, people were extremely unhappy with the economy, and Tsongas would probably appeal to a lot of moderates and conservatives who normally voted Republican. Tsongas obviously does worse in the South, but he could lose every Southern state and still win in the electoral college 323 to 215.

 

[David T]

A post of mine from 2014:

***
Was Clinton really that much stronger a candidate than Brown or Tsongas would have been? In the South, probably. But note: you can give Bush the five southern states Clinton won (Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Tennessee, with a total of 47 electoral votes) and the Democrats will still win with 323 electoral votes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992 Let's also give Bush every non-southern state that Clinton carried by less than a four percent margin: NH, 4; Ohio, 21; New Jersey, 15; Montana, 3; Nevada, 4. The Democrats still get 276 electoral votes. (And btw, why assume that Tsongas would lose NH, where he beat Clinton in the primary? And if anything Brown might do better than Clinton in Nevada, next door to California. Nor am I sure that either Brown or Tsongas would lose New Jersey. But let's just assume they will lose all these states)

The only other non-southern states that Clinton carried by less than six percent were Colorado and Wisconsin. I think Brown as a westerner would be quite strong in Colorado (he beat Clinton in the primary there) and Tsongas also would have a good chance there. I think they would also have good chances in Wisconsin, where Clinton only narrowly beat Brown, with Tsongas running a respectable third. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_1992 And remember that Dukakis had carried Wisconsin in 1988... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1988

I do think that Clinton was probably stronger than Brown or Tsongas in a border state like Missouri. But given that he carried it by over ten percent, other Democrats could do worse there and still carry it comfortably. Even Dukakis came within four percentage points of Bush in Missouri in 1988, a much better year for the Republicans.

I think we overestimate the extent to which Clinton's victories in 1992 and 1996 were due to his own strengths rather than to the underlying conditions favoring any Democrat in those years. Clinton also had his weaknesses--the "pot smoking, womanizing, draft-dodger" image for example. Remember "I didn't inhale"? https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/wi-clinton-waits-intill-1996.337695/#post-10063862

**

As I noted in the same thread,

"Tsongas was *not* an economic populist. He was much more a "green eyeshade" balance-the-budget type. He was even co-founder of the Concord Coalition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concord_Coalition http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19950111&slug=2098992

***

Thoughts several years later: Would Tsongas' " "green eyeshade" balance-the-budget" persona hurt him in November? It's easy to say that sort of stuff doesn't appeal to voters-- but in fact Perot got a lot of votes talking about the menace of the deficit and the national debt. Admittedly, Perot had more credibility with the public on that subject because he was a successful businessman. But as others have noted, it is possible that Perot would have endorsed Tsongas, and while he might not bring *all* his followers to Tsongas, he might bring a great many.

 

[Jes Lo]

Would it be likely for Perot and Tsongas to come to some sort of an agreement and join forces to some extent?

 

[Amadeus]

A post of mine from 2014:

***
Was Clinton really that much stronger a candidate than Brown or Tsongas would have been? In the South, probably. But note: you can give Bush the five southern states Clinton won (Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Tennessee, with a total of 47 electoral votes) and the Democrats will still win with 323 electoral votes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992 Let's also give Bush every non-southern state that Clinton carried by less than a four percent margin: NH, 4; Ohio, 21; New Jersey, 15; Montana, 3; Nevada, 4. The Democrats still get 276 electoral votes. (And btw, why assume that Tsongas would lose NH, where he beat Clinton in the primary? And if anything Brown might do better than Clinton in Nevada, next door to California. Nor am I sure that either Brown or Tsongas would lose New Jersey. But let's just assume they will lose all these states)

The only other non-southern states that Clinton carried by less than six percent were Colorado and Wisconsin. I think Brown as a westerner would be quite strong in Colorado (he beat Clinton in the primary there) and Tsongas also would have a good chance there. I think they would also have good chances in Wisconsin, where Clinton only narrowly beat Brown, with Tsongas running a respectable third. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_1992 And remember that Dukakis had carried Wisconsin in 1988... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1988

I do think that Clinton was probably stronger than Brown or Tsongas in a border state like Missouri. But given that he carried it by over ten percent, other Democrats could do worse there and still carry it comfortably. Even Dukakis came within four percentage points of Bush in Missouri in 1988, a much better year for the Republicans.

I think we overestimate the extent to which Clinton's victories in 1992 and 1996 were due to his own strengths rather than to the underlying conditions favoring any Democrat in those years. Clinton also had his weaknesses--the "pot smoking, womanizing, draft-dodger" image for example. Remember "I didn't inhale"? https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/wi-clinton-waits-intill-1996.337695/#post-10063862

**

As I noted in the same thread,

"Tsongas was *not* an economic populist. He was much more a "green eyeshade" balance-the-budget type. He was even co-founder of the Concord Coalition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concord_Coalition http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19950111&slug=2098992

***

Thoughts several years later: Would Tsongas' " "green eyeshade" balance-the-budget" persona hurt him in November? It's easy to say that sort of stuff doesn't appeal to voters-- but in fact Perot got a lot of votes talking about the menace of the deficit and the national debt. Admittedly, Perot had more credibility with the public on that subject because he was a successful businessman. But as others have noted, it is possible that Perot would have endorsed Tsongas, and while he might not bring *all* his followers to Tsongas, he might bring a great many.

This is a trenchant and compelling analysis. While Tsongas would perform worse than Clinton in the electoral college simply by virtue of being less competitive in the South (he may well lose every state in the former Confederacy) he would still defeat Bush and likely by a decisive margin. Bush lost because of the 1990-91 recession, the weak recovery, and his perceived apathy towards the nation's economic woes. Just about any Democrat who ran a competent campaign and responded to voters' concerns regarding the economy would have beaten Bush.

 

[dw93]

I do not understand why people assume Tsongas would lose. Bush's campaign was terrible, people were extremely unhappy with the economy, and Tsongas would probably appeal to a lot of moderates and conservatives who normally voted Republican. Tsongas obviously does worse in the South, but he could lose every Southern state and still win in the electoral college 323 to 215.

I don't think Tsongas would've reached working class voters (even those outside the South) the way Clinton did and it would be almost as easy for the GOP to paint Tsongas out as a "Massachusetts Liberal" as it was for them to do so to Dukakis. In a two man race, if Bush still runs a bad campaign, I could see Tsonags eeking out a win. If Perot still runs, I can see a lot of moderate working class voters that voted for Clinton going for Perot and handing Bush a razor thin win.

 

[bguy]

Thoughts several years later: Would Tsongas' " "green eyeshade" balance-the-budget" persona hurt him in November? It's easy to say that sort of stuff doesn't appeal to voters-- but in fact Perot got a lot of votes talking about the menace of the deficit and the national debt.

How much of Perot's support came from his views about the deficit though as opposed to his opposition to NAFTA?

 

[Amadeus]

I don't think Tsongas would've reached working class voters (even those outside the South) the way Clinton did and it would be almost as easy for the GOP to paint Tsongas out as a "Massachusetts Liberal" as it was for them to do so to Dukakis. In a two man race, if Bush still runs a bad campaign, I could see Tsonags eeking out a win. If Perot still runs, I can see a lot of moderate working class voters that voted for Clinton going for Perot and handing Bush a razor thin win.

But Bush did run a poor campaign with no clear message and a running mate who could not spell the word "potato" correctly. It's worth noting that in Maine, where the President spent his summers at the family compound, Bush came in third behind Ross Perot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_presidential_election_in_Maine

If you swing 3% from Clinton to Bush, then Bush barely wins the election with 271 votes to Clinton's 267. If in addition you shift Arkansas (which Tsongas obviously would have been less likely to win) into the Republican camp, then Bush wins with 277 votes. But that would be the narrowest re-election victory of any President since Wilson in 1916.

 

[raharris1973]

Bush wins.
Tsongas appeal was mostly to the pundit class and middle class deficit hawks and he took advantage of Clinton's early stumbles with the Ginnifer Flowers' revelations and the "I didn't inhale" quote.
With that stated either Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa or Sen Bob Kerrey of Nebraska would have gotten the nomination.

Why would Tom Harkin or Bob Kerrey have triumphed over Tsongas for the nomination?

Why would Bush have defeated Harkin?

Why would Bush have defeated Kerrey?

If Clinton didn't run probably some other Southern White Democrat would have run.

Sam Nunn? (GA)

John Breaux (LA)

David Boren? (OK)

Dave McCurdy? (OK)

Charlie Wilson? (TX)

Chuck Robb (VA)

Connie Mack (FL)

Anne Richards (TX)

Fritz Hollings....again (NC)

 

[Wendell]

Fritz Hollings is from South Carolina, not Best Carolina.

 

[feanor512]

He loses. I think the only other Democratic who could've beaten Bush the Greater was Mario Cuomo.

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

Tsongas wins, still. Democrat economics much the same as OTL, but the party is at least less prude so a net better world slightly.

No clinton-era expansion of anti-smoking stuff or lawsuits since imo only a southern populist-sounding dem couild do it. Clinton is imo the only one who'd both be able to AND want to od it of that era, fortunately so Joe Camel survives either to this day or worst case scenario longer.