Perot wins in 1992. What does 1996 look like?

[connorCD]

During the 1992 presidential debates, Ross Perot mentioned that should he be elected, he would only serve one term, saying and I quote:

"If the American people send me up to do this job, I intend to be there one term. I do not intend to spend one minute of one day thinking about re-election."

So let's say that somehow, Perot does the unthinkable and wins the election. Of course, he could change his mind and run again, but I doubt it considering it would only paint him as a liar and a hypocrite considering he criticized Bush for increasing taxes after promising not to. So if he doesn't stand for reelection, what does the 1996 election look like? who do the Republicans and Democrats nominate for the position? If the Reform party still exists, who runs for its nomination if Perot is out of the picture? Who would be the ultimate winner of the election?

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

Booming economy means Perot wins. GOP/democrats both less antipopulist and less economically libertarian than OTL thanks to Perot showing you can't just write off people below the top 20%.

 

[connorCD]

Booming economy means Perot wins. GOP/democrats both less antipopulist and less economically libertarian than OTL thanks to Perot showing you can't just write off people below the top 20%.

I literally said he wouldn't run for reelection but ok.

 

[Marius Mazzini]

With an unorthodox candidate like Perot succeeding in winning an election, there'd be a push within both the Democratic and Republican parties to run similar "celebrity" candidates. Colin Powell would be the obvious choice for the Republican Party and he may win if he does indeed run. Donald Trump may also try to take up the mantle of radical centrist businessman with a protectionist streak with Perot not running for reelection and probably try to take over the Reform party.

 

[dw93]

I can see the Democrats running an anti NAFTA candidate to win back any labor votes they lost in 1992, Dick Gephardt fits that description. I see a legit civil war forming in the GOP over how to interpret a Perot victory so god only knows what direction they go in.

 

[connorCD]

bump

 

[brunohusker]

While I see the economy being good, I find that it might be hard for Perot to get stuff done with congress as the Reform Party won’t have any members and I doubt anyone would join. I don’t know if the 94 Republican revolution still happens (probably not but who knows) but I could see how liberals might feel Perot might cut crucial funds and already poor communities will struggle, even with a booming economy.

I do think you might see Reform candidates run in 94 but I don’t know if the party itself can do well without Perot unless his platform is so popular that politicians try to join. If anything we see spoilers in most races, and it might depend on region. Candidates more like Perot will pull from Dems allowing the GOP to benefit while those more like Pat Buchanan or even Donald Trump might pull away from Republicans, meaning democrats might make headway in strange places.

As for 96, Perot probably wins against Dole. Not sure who the democrat would be. Part of me feels Gore wouldn’t run, and it might be someone like Bob Kerrey, John Kerry, Tom Harkin, or someone in that vein. Perot wins but his success varies as the Reform Party never gets more than 30 members in the house and even with Jesse Ventura winning the governorship in Minnesota, he breaks from the party eventually.

 

[Dancing Fool]

I can see the Democrats running an anti NAFTA candidate to win back any labor votes they lost in 1992, Dick Gephardt fits that description. I see a legit civil war forming in the GOP over how to interpret a Perot victory so god only knows what direction they go in.

Wouldn’t part of the GOP plan be to paint the Democrats as “fairness,”—in quotes— that would be the claim, and themselves as interested in economic growth as a tide which will lift all boats?

 

[connorCD]

While I see the economy being good, I find that it might be hard for Perot to get stuff done with congress as the Reform Party won’t have any members and I doubt anyone would join. I don’t know if the 94 Republican revolution still happens (probably not but who knows) but I could see how liberals might feel Perot might cut crucial funds and already poor communities will struggle, even with a booming economy.

I do think you might see Reform candidates run in 94 but I don’t know if the party itself can do well without Perot unless his platform is so popular that politicians try to join. If anything we see spoilers in most races, and it might depend on region. Candidates more like Perot will pull from Dems allowing the GOP to benefit while those more like Pat Buchanan or even Donald Trump might pull away from Republicans, meaning democrats might make headway in strange places.

As for 96, Perot probably wins against Dole. Not sure who the democrat would be. Part of me feels Gore wouldn’t run, and it might be someone like Bob Kerrey, John Kerry, Tom Harkin, or someone in that vein. Perot wins but his success varies as the Reform Party never gets more than 30 members in the house and even with Jesse Ventura winning the governorship in Minnesota, he breaks from the party eventually.

While I agree the GOP making gains during 1994 and beyond is inevitable simply due to the ever changing political landscape, I'm not exactly certain if the Republic revolution as we knew it would happen. IIRC a major reason why it worked so well was the GOP catering towards people who voted for Perot, so if Perot's already president and is popular enough to inspire the creation of an alt-Reform party and people to run under it, you could see less of a Republican revolution and more of a surge in "outsider" candidates. How successful they are is beyond me to theorize.

I've already said multiple times that Perot isn't running for a second term here so its a moot point to discuss whether or not he wins in 1996, But I am curious about who would run in his place if he still forms his own party here. Stockdale (assuming he's vice president here) likely isn't going to run simply due to age, Ventura and Trump haven't even entered the equation by that time, and I'm not sure if someone like Buchanan or Dick Lamm is palatable enough for Perot and his supporters to settle on. Maybe Jerry Brown?

 

[mspence]

On the Republican side, maybe Morry Taylor has a better shot running as a Perot-type candidate, or Jack Kemp. For the Democrats, Tom Harkin had run as a populist in 1992, perhaps he tries again as the anti-NAFTA candidate. Jerry Brown might run again, also.

 

[Dancing Fool]

or Jack Kemp

Kemp was also Secretary of Housing from 89 to 93 during the president of George H. W. Bush. But I’ve read that Kemp drove Bush crazy just because he (Kemp) talked so much.

So, maybe Kemp was a better candidate on paper than in reality.

 

[Wendell]

It's an interesting question dependent in part on how/why Perot won in 1992.

 

[connorCD]

It's an interesting question dependent in part on how/why Perot won in 1992.

Honestly I could really only imagine him winning 1992 by having basically everything going right for him and everything going wrong for Bush and Clinton. Maybe have him run a more efficient and coherent campaign while Clinton completely bombs on the Gennifer Flowers allegations and Bush having a less easy time with Pat Buchanan in the primary.