George H.W. Bush wins in 1992?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 08:21:55 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  History
  Alternative History (Moderator: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee)
  George H.W. Bush wins in 1992?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: George H.W. Bush wins in 1992?  (Read 12641 times)
LBJ Revivalist
ModerateDemocrat1990
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 799


Political Matrix
E: -5.87, S: -2.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: January 26, 2010, 12:44:39 AM »

What do you think would've happened differently if George H.W. Bush won the election in '92 and thus served from 1993 to 1997? What would've been different in terms of foreign policy, economics and socially? Would Clinton have run in 1996 had he been beaten in '92?
Logged
Max Electric
Rookie
**
Posts: 41
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: February 08, 2010, 11:01:02 PM »

No Hillarycare = No Republican Revolution

Greenspan + Cyclical nature of economy = Bush Boom

Somalia = Somalia

Waco = Waco

1996 = Gore or Kerrey win over Quayle.
Logged
Magic 8-Ball
mrk
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,674
Czech Republic


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: February 09, 2010, 03:42:56 AM »

His eldest son never becomes president.
Logged
Anthony
Rookie
**
Posts: 96
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: February 15, 2010, 10:07:44 PM »

His eldest son never becomes president.

Not neccessarily true. Dubya still could have run for governor while his dad was still president. And it is still possible that if a Democrat won in 1996, he still could have run for president either in 2000 or 2004.

Although if it was true, then I kind of wish Bush Sr. had been reelected just so we wouldn't have had to deal with his son's disastrous presidency.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,986
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: February 16, 2010, 11:47:33 PM »

Although if it was true, then I kind of wish Bush Sr. had been reelected just so we wouldn't have had to deal with his son's disastrous presidency.

Blame Gore for that. Gore essentially blew an election that he was supposed to win in a landslide.

Also, I think that having Bush Sr. serve two terms might have increased his son's (either George Jr.'s or Jeb's) chances of becoming President since his legacy would probably be somewhat better and thus more people would be inclinced to vote for one (or both) of his sons.
Logged
perdedor
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,638


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: February 23, 2010, 04:38:43 PM »

Although if it was true, then I kind of wish Bush Sr. had been reelected just so we wouldn't have had to deal with his son's disastrous presidency.

Blame Gore for that. Gore essentially blew an election that he was supposed to win in a landslide.


Ummmm....what? I recall one early 2000 poll that had Gore trailing by over 40 points. If anything, it was a hell of a comeback.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,986
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: February 23, 2010, 07:28:07 PM »

Although if it was true, then I kind of wish Bush Sr. had been reelected just so we wouldn't have had to deal with his son's disastrous presidency.

Blame Gore for that. Gore essentially blew an election that he was supposed to win in a landslide.


Ummmm....what? I recall one early 2000 poll that had Gore trailing by over 40 points. If anything, it was a hell of a comeback.

The most pro-Bush poll I saw was Bush by 19%, back in 1999 I believe. Also, Bush Sr. was trailing Dukakis by 15-20% throughout the summer, yet still won by a landslide in the fall due to the good economy, Reagan's popularity, and lack of foreign wars/threats. Many voters don't really begin to pay attention to the race until after Labor Day. Similarly, in 2000, Clinton was popular, the economy was good, and there were no foreign threats or wars--yet unlike Bush Sr., Gore never managed to open a large lead over Bush and ended up losing the election by several hundred votes (the margin would have very likely been larger had it not been for Bush's DUI story). In fact, Clinton's popularity on electin day was higher (about 60%) than Reagan's was (about 52-53%), yet Gore still managed to blow it.
Logged
Anthony
Rookie
**
Posts: 96
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: February 23, 2010, 08:07:14 PM »

Although if it was true, then I kind of wish Bush Sr. had been reelected just so we wouldn't have had to deal with his son's disastrous presidency.

Blame Gore for that. Gore essentially blew an election that he was supposed to win in a landslide.

Also, I think that having Bush Sr. serve two terms might have increased his son's (either George Jr.'s or Jeb's) chances of becoming President since his legacy would probably be somewhat better and thus more people would be inclinced to vote for one (or both) of his sons.

Ummm...just to let you know, I never actually said that in my post that it was anybody's fault. I was simply responding to Magic 8-Ball, who suggested that Dubya wouldn't have been elected if Bush Sr. was reelected, and I was just saying I wished that Bush Sr. was reelected if that had been true.

I wasn't neccessarily blaming anybody for this, though I do agree that Gore does deserve some blame for not running a very good campaign.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,899
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: February 25, 2010, 04:42:15 PM »

Well at least the country would have been spared Bill Clinton...
Logged
Scam of God
Einzige
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,159
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -9.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: March 04, 2010, 07:33:15 AM »

Quayle would never have been the Republican nominee. Dole would still probably have gotten his shot.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,986
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: March 04, 2010, 10:24:24 PM »

Well at least the country would have been spared Bill Clinton...

You make it sound like Clinton was all that bad.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,899
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: March 04, 2010, 10:38:53 PM »

Well at least the country would have been spared Bill Clinton...

You make it sound like Clinton was all that bad.

Clinton was a scumbag, so of course I would rather he had lost in 1992.
Logged
President Biden Democrat
mrappaport1220
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 569
United States


P P
WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: December 09, 2018, 04:35:15 PM »

Democrats would probably have the white house right now in 2018 until 2020.
Logged
darklordoftech
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,391
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: December 10, 2018, 06:57:08 AM »
« Edited: December 10, 2018, 07:01:10 AM by darklordoftech »

I wonder how the NRA and Tim McVeigh would have reacted to Waco if it happened under HW and Barr instead of Clinton and Reno. m

Also, no Clintons = less intense culture wars.
Logged
brucejoel99
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,459
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: December 10, 2018, 07:34:10 PM »

Bush winning re-election in 1992 leads to a different 90's politically. W/out a Democratic president in office, & one which the Republicans can run against & blame, & w/out the presidential loss & a subsequent political fit that was thrown, there's no "Republican Revolution" of any sort in 1994. In regards to Congress, Bush's presidency would've given Democrats somebody to run against, so I think Democrats would do quite well for themselves. There also wouldn't have been Clinton trying to push healthcare reform through, which was a big factor that led to the Gingrich era.

His ideas & policies would surely differ from Clinton's while in office. He would've had issues w/ deficit control, being faced by the Democratic-controlled Congress demanding increased taxes, while his own party wanted to slash spending. Foreign policy wise, we might well have gone into Rwanda to stop the mass killings, regardless of having U.N. backing or not, though our doing so may have drawn other countries to do the same.

By 1996, you would have what was planned for 1996 circa pre-1992: all the Democratic candidates who opted out of what they thought was an unwinnable 1992 seeking the nomination. That includes Mario Cuomo, Al Gore, & a long list of others. You'd also see the Republicans having been in office for 16 years, so the White House is due for a major change over to the Democrats. I don't know who the Republicans would nominate. Quayle is stupid, although he probably would've tried. You could likely still have Dole, as an elder statesman Republican, which was why the Republicans nominated him in 1996 anyway. You could also have somebody most people aren't even familiar w/.

Additionally, both W. & Jeb! wait 'til 1998 to run for their respective governorships, having expected that if Republicans lost the White House in 1996, then it'll be a Republican wave year in 1998.
Logged
dw93
DWL
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,870
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: December 10, 2018, 10:32:30 PM »

Democrats would probably have the white house right now in 2018 until 2020.

A Bush 1992 win would likely see the Presidency go down a path like this:

Bush: 1989-1997
Democrat: 1997-2005
Republican: 2005-2009
Democrat: 2009-2017
Democrat: 2017-2021
Republican: 2021-Incumbent
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,357


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: December 12, 2018, 12:46:53 AM »

George Bush : 1989-1997
Ann Richards : 1997-2005
Sam Nunn : 2005-2009
Mitt Romney : 2009-2017
Mary Landrieu: 2017- Present
Logged
Del Tachi
Republican95
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,711
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: 1.46

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: December 16, 2018, 10:56:33 PM »

George Bush:  1989-97
John Kerry:  1997-05
John McCain:  2005-09
Barack Obama:  2009-17
Donald Trump:  2017-present
Logged
brucejoel99
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,459
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: December 17, 2018, 05:50:03 AM »

Bush winning re-election in 1992 leads to a different 90's politically. W/out a Democratic president in office, & one which the Republicans can run against & blame, & w/out the presidential loss & a subsequent political fit that was thrown, there's no "Republican Revolution" of any sort in 1994. In regards to Congress, Bush's presidency would've given Democrats somebody to run against, so I think Democrats would do quite well for themselves. There also wouldn't have been Clinton trying to push healthcare reform through, which was a big factor that led to the Gingrich era.

His ideas & policies would surely differ from Clinton's while in office. He would've had issues w/ deficit control, being faced by the Democratic-controlled Congress demanding increased taxes, while his own party wanted to slash spending. Foreign policy wise, we might well have gone into Rwanda to stop the mass killings, regardless of having U.N. backing or not, though our doing so may have drawn other countries to do the same.

By 1996, you would have what was planned for 1996 circa pre-1992: all the Democratic candidates who opted out of what they thought was an unwinnable 1992 seeking the nomination. That includes Mario Cuomo, Al Gore, & a long list of others. You'd also see the Republicans having been in office for 16 years, so the White House is due for a major change over to the Democrats. I don't know who the Republicans would nominate. Quayle is stupid, although he probably would've tried. You could likely still have Dole, as an elder statesman Republican, which was why the Republicans nominated him in 1996 anyway. You could also have somebody most people aren't even familiar w/.

Additionally, both W. & Jeb! wait 'til 1998 to run for their respective governorships, having expected that if Republicans lost the White House in 1996, then it'll be a Republican wave year in 1998.

41. George H.W. Bush: 1989-1997
42. Mario Cuomo: 1997-2005
43. Ann Richards: 2005-2006
44. John Kerry: 2006-2009
45. Jeb Bush: 2009-2017
46. Tim Pawlenty: 2017-
Logged
darklordoftech
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,391
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: December 29, 2018, 03:23:59 PM »

I wonder what would become of McVeigh. His belief in right-wing conspiracy theories about Waco was what drove him to bomb OK City.
Logged
Lechasseur
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,757


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: 3.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: January 05, 2019, 03:42:36 PM »

Bush winning re-election in 1992 leads to a different 90's politically. W/out a Democratic president in office, & one which the Republicans can run against & blame, & w/out the presidential loss & a subsequent political fit that was thrown, there's no "Republican Revolution" of any sort in 1994. In regards to Congress, Bush's presidency would've given Democrats somebody to run against, so I think Democrats would do quite well for themselves. There also wouldn't have been Clinton trying to push healthcare reform through, which was a big factor that led to the Gingrich era.

His ideas & policies would surely differ from Clinton's while in office. He would've had issues w/ deficit control, being faced by the Democratic-controlled Congress demanding increased taxes, while his own party wanted to slash spending. Foreign policy wise, we might well have gone into Rwanda to stop the mass killings, regardless of having U.N. backing or not, though our doing so may have drawn other countries to do the same.

By 1996, you would have what was planned for 1996 circa pre-1992: all the Democratic candidates who opted out of what they thought was an unwinnable 1992 seeking the nomination. That includes Mario Cuomo, Al Gore, & a long list of others. You'd also see the Republicans having been in office for 16 years, so the White House is due for a major change over to the Democrats. I don't know who the Republicans would nominate. Quayle is stupid, although he probably would've tried. You could likely still have Dole, as an elder statesman Republican, which was why the Republicans nominated him in 1996 anyway. You could also have somebody most people aren't even familiar w/.

Additionally, both W. & Jeb! wait 'til 1998 to run for their respective governorships, having expected that if Republicans lost the White House in 1996, then it'll be a Republican wave year in 1998.

I think the economy would have still been good in '96 even with a Bush victory, but after 16 years in the WH I think people would have been tired of the GOP and a Democrat would have been elected in '96 unless the Democrats put up awful candidates like they did in '84 and '88. I think the possible contenders for the nomination on the Democratic side would have been Mario Cuomo, Ann Richards, Dick Gephardt, Al Gore, Sam Nunn, Bob Graham, Bob Kerrey and John Kerry (that doesn't mean they all run of course). My personal feeling is the nomination would have gone to either Richards, Gephardt or Graham out of these (I think Democrats would be weary of nominating a Northeastern liberal after being out of office for 16 years, they probably would have preferred to nominate a safer candidate, but Cuomo would still have his shot of course, especially if he was the one major liberal running against several moderate and conservative candidates). The GOP doesn't nominate Quayle; I think their options would have been either Dole, Powell, James Baker or Kemp (you'll notice that the Democrats already have a much larger talent pool than the GOP, which should say something about their chances in 1996). I think any of them most likely end up being a sacrificial lamb. And then a Democrat is President until 2005 or 2009.

I generally agree with the quoted analysis.

Oh and I think the culture wars would have been much less intense, at least waiting until the mid to late 2000s to really take shape like in most of Europe rather than in the 1990s had Bush won in '92.

And a more honorable man would have been president, and was much less polarizing than any of his IRL successors, so I think the problem of hate and disrespect of the president wouldn't be there (or would have at least been delayed) had Bush won in '92.

And I think had HW won in '92, the son that would have been pushed to run for president would probably have been Jeb rather than Dubya, given the culture wars wouldn't have been as big of a factor.

At anyrate the country I think would be a lot better off and less divided today had Bush won in '92. I think if there's one election result I would have changed since WWII, it would probably be this one, as I think '92 is when America's trajectory started going downhill (the other contender would be 2012).

I wonder what would become of McVeigh. His belief in right-wing conspiracy theories about Waco was what drove him to bomb OK City.

Yeah I don't think Oklahoma City happens had Clinton not been president, but afterwards who knows, the conspiracy theorists were doing stuff even when Reagan and Bush were presidents.
Logged
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,511
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: February 16, 2019, 07:09:28 PM »

Does anyone know why George H. W. Bush picked Dan Quayle as his running-mate instead of Jack Kemp who was also considered on the Veep list in 1988? 
Logged
darklordoftech
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,391
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: February 17, 2019, 06:51:06 PM »

Does anyone know why George H. W. Bush picked Dan Quayle as his running-mate instead of Jack Kemp who was also considered on the Veep list in 1988? 
HW probably thought that Quayle had more appeal to the Religious Right and to rural voters.
Logged
LAKISYLVANIA
Lakigigar
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,165
Belgium


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -4.78

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: February 17, 2019, 09:03:18 PM »
« Edited: February 17, 2019, 09:10:14 PM by Lakigigar »

1989-1997: George W. Bush
1997-2005: Al Gore
2005-2009: John McCain
2009-2017: Barack Obama
2017-2021: Donald J. Trump
2021-2025 : Joe Biden
2025-... : Democratic primary challenger vs Republican

Elections:
1992: Bush - Clinton - Perot
1996: Al Gore - Dole - Perot
2000: Al Gore - Bush
2004: McCain - Kerry
2008: Obama - McCain
2012: Obama - Romney
2016: Trump - Warren
2020: Biden - Trump
2024: O'Rourke - Haley
(2028: O'Rourke - Cruz)

No Republican Revolution
Republicans would have had to deal with Balkan wars and the Rwanda Genocide. Bob Dole and Dan Quayle as candidates. Al Gore wins.
Hillary Clinton wouldn't have become famous (or to a less extent), and it would ruin her future prospects of ever becoming a senator, president and ...
Al Gore re-elects, and has to deal with 9/11. Democrats will get criticized. Republicans will make use of fear and win 2002 elections bigly.
Iraq War wouldn't have happened
The popular John McCain wins in 2005, with a more interventionist / active foreign policy platform
2007-2008 crisis happens. McCain's wars / interventionism will make him very unpopular.
Obama wins in an even bigger landslide in 2009 landslide, after not being contested by Clinton and after having a clear win.
2010 / 2012 / 2014 would all be similar to current timeline.
Donald J. Trump wins in 2016 but not against Hillary Clinton but against Elizabeth Warren.
Sanders wouldn't have run in 2016. Progressive left would've been weaker in this timeline and as Warren is defeated in 2016, Biden and Harris become front-runners in 2021. I believe Biden would win the primary, win the general election, but be defeated again in 2025 (not run for re-election or be unpopular and be defeated in a primary.)
Logged
CEO Mindset
penttilinkolafan
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 925
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: February 17, 2019, 09:12:11 PM »

Reaganism burns out thanks to getting 16 years in power as opposed to OTL's 1) avoiding burnout 2) lucking out and getting the most neoliberal/free market/conservative democrat who could get through the primaries.

That's not the case in this timeline. Mario Cuomo or some other liberal/center left(I said center-left not "centrist" so not clinton/gore/gephart) who can come off as not an aging hippie is the dem's guy in 1996. Cuomo, followed by Kerry.

We're probably in the middle of 12-16 years of TTL's second conservative moment, but at least with fewer silent/GI voters and boomers having long since aged out of raising their own kids it'd be significantly less prudish than say the Reaganites or even Bill Clinton were. Call it say 2012-2024 or 2028 for the timeframe i'm talking about.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.067 seconds with 13 queries.