If Bush got re-elected in 92, would the GOP have ruled until 2008?

[Matty]

If bush got re-elected in 92, he likely would have experienced the same healthy economic rebound that that clinton. The republican nominee in 96 would probably have an easy time winning in  a non-volatile time, and probably would win again in 2000 if economic conditions remained strong.

[LLR]

no, by 2000 people wouldve got veery tired of gop leadership

[Devout Centrist]

Who would they put forward in 1996?

It's the same with the Democrats if Clinton serves two terms. Who comes next?

[Kingpoleon]

Maybe. A healthier Tsongas might be better able to take on Quayle. However, if McCain or Giuliani beat Quayle in the primaries, then GOP dominance would last until 2000 or 2004.

[TrumpCard]

No John Kerry would've defeated Bob Dole in 1996 and lost to McCain in 2000.  By 2008 we might be back to where we were in the time-line we know today.

[Slow Learner]

No John Kerry would've defeated Bob Dole in 1996 and lost to McCain in 2000.  By 2008 we might be back to where we were in the time-line we know today.

That's not how that works.

[Lechasseur]

No, had Bush won reelection in 1992 the Democrats would have won either in 1996 or in 2000, assuming they stopped running candidates like Mondale and Dukakis.

[mianfei]

It’s interesting to speculate what the Democratic Party would have done in the 1990s if Bush had been re-elected.

Likely there would have existed greater pressure on the Democrats to move further left on social issues than actually existed in the 1990s. As Peter F. Nardulli, Jon K. Dalager and Donald E. Greco in ‘Voter Turnout in U. S. Presidential Elections: An Historical View and Some Speculation’ (from the September 1996 issue of Political Science and Politics) show, in 1984 when Reagan came close to a 50-state sweep voter turnout in the most socially liberal inner cities was lagging badly vis-à-vis the remainder of the nation. It lagged even further during the 1990s although Clinton was winning the Presidency. This can only imply that the liberal core cities were unsatisfied either with Clinton’s economic policies or slowness of liberalization on sexual and moral matters.

If the Republicans were solidifying their grip on the rest of the nation in the 1990s as they actually did in the 2000s, a leftward move by the Democrats to have more inner-city voters voting and for more vigourous policies to liberalize and eliminate laws against homosexuality, birth control, and racial and sexual quotas would have been necessary for them to develop a base with a chance of competing for the Presidency. This would have been even more true if the “revolution of 1994” in the conservative South at a state and congressional level had occurred with the GOP in continuous power for fourteen years.

What this would have meant for the 1996 and 2000 elections is not clear. Gore might well have been nominated in 1996, but with the economy as it was he might not have won election. It’s plausible that with a loss of prosperity and growing Muslim terror threats that the Democrats might have had more chance in 2000 if they could have mobilized those socially liberal voters, and they would have had a bigger chance still in 2004.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Dole wins in 1996 and then Dems win in 2000.

[erſatz-york]

Is Dole running for re-election or does he decide that he is too old?

[Rjjr77]

Dole wins in 1996 and then Dems win in 2000.

I assume Kemp probably runs in 96 rather than sitting the cycle out, Dole probably isnt the nominee, Kemp or Quayle probably finish ahead of him

[KingSweden]

Dole wins in 1996 and then Dems win in 2000.

I assume Kemp probably runs in 96 rather than sitting the cycle out, Dole probably isnt the nominee, Kemp or Quayle probably finish ahead of him

I'd think Kemp runs and wins, loses in 2000 after 20 straight years of GOP control to a Kerry or Feinstein.

Interest counter factual - how to apply a Scowcroft foreign policy to Rwanda, Somalia and Bosnia, all which would have happened in a hypothetical Bush 41 second term.

1994 likely is a strong Dem year, NAFTA is permanently associated with GOP rather than "Third Way"

[mianfei]

As I see it, the two trends actually observed in the 1990s:

• the “Republican Revolution” that displaced old-school (pre-Dixiecrat-led dealignment) Democrats in the South
• increasing activism on the part of the homosexual and feminist lobbies, and increasing violence in rap, heavy metal and alternative music and other artforms

would have turned the GOP after two terms of Bush Senior to a social hardliner like former Undersecretary of Education Gary Bauer for the 1996 election, who was to seek the Republican nomination in 2000 without success. With the two trends noted above I cannot see anyone other then Al Gore being the 1996 Democratic nominee, so we would have seen a possible 2000 battle one election early.

If the economy were as good as it was in 1996, it would have been tough for Gore to win. The only trap would have been Bush spending much more on defense than Clinton was to, which would have been potentially very costly for a balanced budget and would have potentially turned voters away from the Republicans.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Extremely unlikely. 28 years of continuous rule? Come on.

[President Johnson]

I seriously doubt it. I think that even the 1996 Democratic nominee would have pulled off a victory.

Senator Albert Arnold Gore (D-TN)/Governor Mario Cuomo (D-NY): 376 EV. (51.72%)
Senator Robert J. Dole (R-KS)/Representative Jack Kemp (R-NY): 162 EV. (46.07%)

Vice President-elect Cuomo got reelected was governor in 1994 since there was no GOP wave with Poppy Bush in the White House.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Economy was doing good in 2000 and 2016, with a popular President, yet the opposite party won. There are other factors.

[dw93]

I think the Democrats would win in 1996 as they would have a stronger field (a lot of Democrats who were swept out in 1994 in Clinton's OTL presidency would be re elected) than the GOP, which would be a contest of Dole vs. Quayle. It would be close, as the economy would be about as strong as OTL, but expect a Democratic President Inaugurated in January 1997. Barring some scandal or International blunder, said Democrat is probably re elected in 2000 as well. If this is the case, the GOP retake Congress in 2002 (if they didn't already in '98) and the White House in 2004.

[President Johnson]

I think the Democrats would win in 1996 as they would have a stronger field (a lot of Democrats who were swept out in 1994 in Clinton's OTL presidency would be re elected) than the GOP, which would be a contest of Dole vs. Quayle. It would be close, as the economy would be about as strong as OTL, but expect a Democratic President Inaugurated in January 1997. Barring some scandal or International blunder, said Democrat is probably re elected in 2000 as well. If this is the case, the GOP retake Congress in 2002 (if they didn't already in '98) and the White House in 2004.

Yeah, and then a Democrat (probably Obama) ousts the Republican president in 2008 due to the recession (maybe McCain or Jeb).

[#gravelgang #lessiglad]

President Bayh in 1996.

Evan, right? Birch would be too old, sadly.

[Mister Mets]

I doubt it.

People get tired of parties in the White House, even when things are good. An aspect is that there's a tendency for the parties to kick the can down the road, which catches up with them at some point.

In '96, Quayle would have been a weak frontrunner on the GOP side, so there would be an unimpressive presidential nominee to boot. In this scenario, the '94 revolution would likely have been delayed until the Democrats' first midterm, creating a different bench for the parties (Ann Richards would likely be a second term Governor from a state that produced several Presidents, Mario Cuomo would probably have won a fourth term.)

[mianfei]

I doubt it.

People get tired of parties in the White House, even when things are good. An aspect is that there's a tendency for the parties to kick the can down the road, which catches up with them at some point.

In '96, Quayle would have been a weak frontrunner on the GOP side, so there would be an unimpressive presidential nominee to boot. In this scenario, the '94 revolution would likely have been delayed until the Democrats' first midterm, creating a different bench for the parties (Ann Richards would likely be a second term Governor from a state that produced several Presidents, Mario Cuomo would probably have won a fourth term.)

I cannot see how Clinton’s election was a prerequisite for the changes that occurred in the South in 1994. Southern whites were as conservative socially and economically as ever, and there was an untapped base of socially radical urbanites who clearly were the Democrats’ sole potential base, which the GOP could have no hope of capturing. The old-style socially (relatively or absolutely) conservative Democrats had gain a last re-invigoration via the 1972 McGovern disaster, but they had been a dying breed before Nixon’s 3,000-county+ landslide.

A candidate who could mobilize social liberals for whom the 1980s Democrats were too conservative could have had a chance of success, but with a good economy in 1996 it would have almost certainly waited until 2000 or 2004. Moreover, if the radical vanguard of the homosexual and similar movements had lost interest in electoral politics – by no means implausible since other avenues brought more change in the Reagan and Bush Senior eras – even twenty-four years of GOP rule might not have produced desire for change amongst actual voters.