George H.W. Bush is re-elected in 1992

[DevotedDemocrat]

In November 1992, President George H.W. Bush is re-elected  to a second term narrowly defeating Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton and Ross Perot. How do you see the next four years under Bush go, domestically and in terms of foreign policy?

How does this effect the Republican Party--does the Republican Party become more moderate under the more centrist Bush, or do they still rebel and take a turn to the hard right as they did under Clinton?

Does the Republican Revolution of 1994 still happen? Or do the Democrats manage to retain Congress?

What sort of domestic agenda can you see President George H.W. Bush setting for the nation between January 1993 and January 1997? What foreign policy questions would beset his administration and how would he answer them?

[barfbag]

He would've continued his moderate/centrist presidency and our economy would've turned around, but not as dramatically. The 1990's were very responsible and allowing companies to not have to wait the 5-7 year waiting period before being in the stock market led to a lot of risks which caused a recession from 2000-2002. It was a fictitious boom. Microsoft would've done very well still and we would've seen a smaller version of the boom which took place 1995-1998. We would've seen a possible John Kerry vs. Bob Dole in 1996.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

He would've continued his moderate/centrist presidency and our economy would've turned around, but not as dramatically. The 1990's were very responsible and allowing companies to not have to wait the 5-7 year waiting period before being in the stock market led to a lot of risks which caused a recession from 2000-2002. It was a fictitious boom. Microsoft would've done very well still and we would've seen a smaller version of the boom which took place 1995-1998. We would've seen a possible John Kerry vs. Bob Dole in 1996.

This.  Honestly, I really, really wish Bush I had won in 1992.

[RosettaStoned]

 The economy was going to rebound in 1993 regardless of who the President was. It is rather odd that he was not re-elected, because Clinton's infidelities were well known during the entire campaign.

[Dancing with Myself]

Bush was the victim of Republican fatigue. The economy hit a snag at the worst time and Clinton/Perot had reasons to run.  Clinton had his deals and Perot had no experience, but the public ate them up because they were new and different plus they were motivating. Dukakis was not in 1988. Bush looked tired and his campaign was mediocre at best, it missed a lot of potential to capitalize off events and against C and P.

But if Bush would have won he would have been the same, maybe more moderate. He would have comprised with the Congress more which would have either been a good or bad thing. The Family Leave Act might not have gotten past the way it is now unless they overruled the veto, the Marriage Act would have made it, and other things would have gotten thru. The Economy would have been the same pretty much and by 1997 it wouldn't be bad.

Foreign Policy he would have been the same as he was in his first term. He was always solid there. He prob would have went to Hati still.

As for 1996 I see either Dole or Quayle vs. Al Gore. Gore wins due to Fatigue

[RogueBeaver]

There would not be a Republican Revolution in '94, but perhaps in '98 if the new Dem President overreaches. At any rate Congress will flip Pub eventually once you mix the right national climate with ongoing Southern Republicanization. Bush wouldn't have governed differently from his first term. Many Pubs prominent in the '90s may not run in '96 since they know fatigue guarantees a Dem win, but later on they'll be politically obsolete. I'm thinking people like Gramm, Wilson, Alexander, etc.