George H.W. Bush wins in 1992?

[KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸]

Democratic victory in '96, no questions asked. I have extreme doubts that the Republicans could pull off four, let alone five, elections in a row. Maybe we could have a President Gore win there?

[mianfei]

If Bush won in 1992, it would certainly make for a much more different game in 1996, no doubt about it.

The Republicans would have won four presidential elections in a row, and the retirement of the old Southern Democrats allows them to claim the House of Representatives and Senate in 1994. If Bush wins in 1992, the Republicans also get to achieve a 9—0 advantage on the Supreme Court – once Byron White retires, there would have been zero Democratic appointees left on the Court. Although White was probably the most conservative Democratic appointee since James Clark McReynolds, Bush would certainly have wanted to replace him with someone even further to the right, and so would most of the rich businessmen who fund the Republican Party. Even if White and/or Harry Blackmun had stayed on the bench until the 1996 election, there is no certainty of a Democratic appointee from that election.

Under such conditions, and with urban communities of color perceived as increasingly threatening during the 1990s due to the (real and perceived) violence of rap music, it is easy to imagine that the Republicans would go all out to completely disenfranchise such communities, to the extent of reducing voter turnout there to below the pre-Smith v. Allright South. In The Psychopathology of American Capitalism, Thomas Paul Bonfiglio argues that these urban communities of color are actually truly disenfranchised. This is not merely because so many (up to one-third) cannot vote due to felony convictions or actual incarceration, but because poor urban communities of color absolutely require a mass radical left party (revolutionary socialist) to represent them, while the US media, big business and the extremely racist attitudes of poorer whites simply forbid one developing. (Citizens United was designed to prevent a mass radical left party, which will necessarily have limited funds as radical left ideals are designed to expropriate the very wealthy to the last cent, from developing.)

Achieving such complete voter suppression will not be easy, but I can imagine a Republican Party holding all branches of government as investing heavily in working out how to completely reverse gains in nonwhite voter participation back to before Smith.

Alongside, and related to, using much more complete voter suppression (and potentially 15th amendment repeal if they had the ability) to stay in power, a more vigorous culture war would have been likely, and one waged from the White House. The view of free people of color as ipso facto deviant is so deeply engrained in US culture – at least white US culture – that a much larger war is likely, not a delayed culture war, and with much more Republican power established.

[darklordoftech]

The Waco Siege and Somalia might not happen.

If the Republican Revolution is delayed until 1998, it wouldn’t result in all those “law and order” policies because “law and order” wasn’t an issue in 1998 or later. If W isn’t elected Governor until 1998, he wouldn’t be ready for the Presidency in 2000. A Democrat who’s first elected in 1996 would be re-elected on “peace and prosperity” in 2000, putting a Democrat in control of foreign policy in 2001-2004  (which likely means more effort to capture or kill Bin Laden and less regime change).

[Samof94]

The Waco Siege and Somalia might not happen.

If the Republican Revolution is delayed until 1998, it wouldn’t result in all those “law and order” policies because “law and order” wasn’t an issue in 1998 or later. If W isn’t elected Governor until 1998, he wouldn’t be ready for the Presidency in 2000. A Democrat who’s first elected in 1996 would be re-elected on “peace and prosperity” in 2000, putting a Democrat in control of foreign policy in 2001-2004  (which likely means more effort to capture or kill Bin Laden and less regime change).

The Democrat in 1996 also wouldn’t be ridden with sex scandals.

[mianfei]

As I said, law and order will still be an issue, in part because the extremely radical urban culture of the late 1980s and early 1990s would mean that law and order would remain part of the Republicans’ mid-term campaign.

If it is felt that the GOP has not done a good job on law and order, it actually could, contra my previous post, delay the “Republican Revolution”. If law and order did not improve after 1994, it would certainly give a moderate Democrat a chance of winning in 1996, but what they would have to do to solve a real or perceived crime problem is an interesting question.

If conditions of law and order do improve, I could see the Republicans, with a 9—0 Supreme Court majority, recruiting Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia as running mate, something which Bob Dole apparently considered but which would certainly be more realistic had Bush Senior been re-elected. Scalia’s hardcore ideological conservatism might be considered extremely valuable with a more intense culture war as I predicted in my previous post, and it would be difficult for Clinton to gain the support he did in many rural counties of Appalachia and the Midwest.

[Frodo]

I don't see how President George Bush could have won re-election in 1992 considering all the headwinds he faced.  How does one overcome a tepid 'jobless recovery' and his breaking of his 'read my lips: no new taxes' pledge, and still win re-election, especially after 12 years of unbroken Republican control of the White House?  I can't think of a plausible way.  You cannot control the economic cycle, and Bush could not have been elected in 1988 had he not made that infamous pledge, considering how lackluster conservative support was for him until he did.  And he had little choice but to break the pledge if he didn't want to cut entitlement programs during congressional negotiations in 1990.  And it didn't help matters that he had a prior reputation as a moderate within the Republican Party who called Ronald Reagan's regulation-, spending-, and tax- cutting economic philosophy 'voodoo economics' during the 1980 GOP primaries.  As a direct result, conservatives would not give him as much leeway to tactically raise taxes the way they had done with President Reagan.

George Bush was damned if he did, and damned if he didn't.  I feel sorry for him, in a way.

[Frodo]

The only way Republicans could have held on to the White House in 1992 was if several factors fell into place:

1. President George Bush decides not to run for re-election -after all he was having health issues, and was leaning towards retirement anyway until he was talked out of it.

2. Congressman Jack Kemp (I choose him as the GOP savior because he seems the best, most logical candidate to carry on Reagan's legacy for another four years) ultimately decided not to serve in the Bush cabinet in 1988/89, and stays in the House, maintaining his distance and independence from whatever happened in the administration.

3. Vice-President Dan Quayle either decides not to run or is primaried by Jack Kemp in the 1992 primaries.  

Then Republicans would have had more than a fighting chance on keeping the White House until January 1997.

[CEO Mindset]

reaganism burns out in 96 or 00. dems much less reagan republican-lite and more socially/econ "left".

[OSR stands with Israel]

Bush only lost the tipping point state by 4.5 points so it’s very possible against a more conventional democratic candidate he’d have won .


Clinton on the other hand not only was an unconventional candidate where the old GOP playbook was useless but ran arguably the greatest general election campaign in modern history

[All Along The Watchtower]

Mario Cuomo is elected President in 1996.