WI: We had Senator Ross Perot (I-TX) in 1993

What if Perot had ran (and won) in the special election in Texas in 1993 to fill Lloyd Bentsen's old senate seat? He was very vocal in his opposition to the policies of the Clinton administration during Clinton's first year in the OTL. Would he have tried to filibuster NAFTA? I could see him on C-SPAN during the NAFTA debate talking for hours. Would he caucus with the Republicans (where his ideology was more in line with) or with the Democrats (who were the majority party at the time and controlled the chairmanships). Would position in the senate help or hurt his chances in 1996? If he were still in the senate during the George W. Bush years how would a Senator Perot had voted on things like the Patriot Act, the Bush tax cuts, and the Iraq war authorization?
 

Jasen777

Donor
Really hard to say how he would be as a senator. But I'm normally a fan of old school talking filibusters. With charts!
 
I checked on Wikipedia the Stats on the 1992 Presidental election and the 1993 Senate election: 1,354,781 people voted for Perot in Texas (22.01%) compared to Kay Bailey Hutchison's 1,188,716 (67.3%). Thus with it being a off year, Perot still somewhat on the national conscious, and his beating Hutchison in the vote tally the year before, I honestly think he could win by with 35-45% of the vote.

If he was in the Senate that could either help or hurt his chances in the 1996 Presidential Election, wither deciding not to run and focus on legislating, or the experience could propel him to new heights, and keep him on the people mind, strengthening him as an independent politician with credible experience and business qualification.

He would definitively make Congress a hell of alot more interesting.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't be surprised if Perot, frustrated that without a caucus in the Senate he's nothing, starts Reform earlier. Perot favored expanding Medicare to include all Americans; his influence could significantly alter the results and repercussions of that fight. 1994 could come down between pro-UHC and anti-NAFTA voters (Reform) and anti-UHC pro-NAFTA voters (Republicans). IOTL Republicans avoided NAFTA completely and pick-and-chose key Perot issues (balances budget amendment, term limits) to get the maximum amount of gains. Without the Republicans monopolizing former Perot voters, there's no Republican Revolution. The Democrats will probably hold onto the House with the confusion, and might even gain seats if the vote-splitting is bad enough.
 
Last edited:
Perot wanted to run things, and be powerful, not be a powerless nonentity that an indepedant senator would be.

Is there any indication anywhere that he was even tempted?
 
Perot wanted to run things, and be powerful, not be a powerless nonentity that an indepedant senator would be.

Is there any indication anywhere that he was even tempted?

Yes and he was used to the absolute power of a CEO. Any elective office would have been frustrating for Perot. He has to run for relelection in 1994 and face the Republican tide. That is if he runs for relection.
 
Top