Talk Elections

Pat Buchanan is somehow able to defeat Bush for the Republican nomination. Perot decides not to run and instead endorses Buchanan. Discuss with maps.

Clinton landslides Buchanan

In 1992 unlike 2016 foreign intervention was viewed positively , free trade was viewed more positively , and populism was getting less and less popular.


()


Clinton 471
Buchanan 67


Virginia barely stays GOP 

()

338 - 200

No way in hell does Buchanan do that well. he'd be extremely lucky to even do as "Well" as H.W did.

Considering that he manages to beat an incumbent Republican president in the primary and gets the endorsement of Perot (who probably campaigns for him as well) in this scenario, I find it extremely unlikely that he would lose in a massive landslide. I also disagree with the assertion that populism was terribly unpopular in 1992.

Populism was unpopular in 1992


Bush Sr ran on a Reagan's 4th term

Clinton ran on ending welfare as we know it , tough on crime , opposing tax and spend policies and reganomics lite

Perot ran on balencing the budget

Exactly. At his absolute best, I could see Buchanan getting Bush's map + Georgia, maybe.
At his worst, he wins 3-5 states and loses the popular vote by 15-20%.

Clinton also ran on traditionally Democratic policies such as making the rich pay their fair share, access to quality healthcare for everyone, clean air and water, and better jobs for the middle class.  He ran a very quasi-populist liberal campaign blended in with cultural Southern conservatism (with the exception of being pro-choice, of course).

()
407: Bill Clinton/Samuel Nunn - 56.0%
131: Pat Buchanan/Donald Rumsfeld - 40.1%

All of those policies can be populist. Populism is a type of rhetoric, not a set of policies.

()
504-34

It would have been a competitive race and certainly no landslide. A coalition consisting of the conservative Republican base that Bush abandoned, the Perot-ites, and midwestern Reagan Democrats (a group that Buchanan, with his views on trade and cultural issues, would have been well positioned to keep in the GOP fold) would have been very formidable. Clinton would have started the general election campaign with a big lead but an energetic GOP campaign and an impressive showing by Buchanan in the debates would have led to a rapid narrowing in the polls.

()

Clinton wins but Buchanan makes him sweat for it; Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Michigan are all decided by fewer than five points.

()

✓ Governor Bill Clinton (D-AR)/Senator Al Gore (D-TN): 430 EVs.; 54.8%
Commentator Patrick Buchanan (R-VA)/Senator Paul Laxalt (R-NV): 108 EVs.; 43.6%

If "populism" were unpopular in 1992, Bill Clinton would not have won.  How he governed (which still is exaggerated how conservative it was, even economically) was not how he campaigned.  For example, there was one candidate in 1992 who was openly in favor of NAFTA (or its predecessor), and it wasn't Clinton.

While I'd agree with you to a degree, you'd have to agree that he's pretty right-wing for a Democrat in 2017, especially given its current platform.

look at this ad : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1rS9R-uNiY

This is Buchanan's realistic best case scenario versus Clinton, IMO. 

*FYI, He was never a televangelist.

Probably about the same map as in real life.

I assume that he got him mixed up with Pat Robertson.

Oops, I got him mixed up with someone else.

This, except I think Clinton would also win Florida

Bill Clinton: 393 EVs
Pat Buchanan: 145 EVs

This plus Montana, Georgia, and North Carolina.