|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 30, 2020, 09:48:11 pm
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Election What-ifs?
  Past Election What-ifs (US) (Moderators: Should've left the Pangolins alone, Apocrypha)
  1992: Bush Sr. vs. Clinton, with several twists
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: 1992: Bush Sr. vs. Clinton, with several twists  (Read 2294 times)
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,987
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: April 12, 2010, 12:53:21 am »

Bush Sr. does not raise taxes, and instead cuts them for ordinary Americans. He also passes a stimulus package, and thus unemployment is reduced from its peak of 7.2% to 6.5% by election day 1992. Ross Perot does not run in this scenario. Also, in the Gulf War, Bush Sr. proceeds to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein in early 1991. Bush Sr. then puts in place a pro-American govt. in Iraq and manages to defeat most of the insurgents there by election day 1992. The Democrats still nominate Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton in 1992, while the GOP renomiantes Bush Sr. Who would win? You pick the VPs. Discuss, with maps.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,616
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: April 17, 2010, 12:56:34 am »

http://

Bush would have been reelected by either taking out Saddam Hussein or by not breaking his promise to not raise taxes. Without Ross Perot he would have won anyhow. That was an easy election to win for him, but all 3 of these things prevented him from doing so. However, we're talking a 20 point election without any of these 3 factors.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: April 17, 2010, 02:00:34 am »


400-138
Logged
justW353
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,693
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -3.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: April 17, 2010, 11:16:20 am »


428 - 110
Logged
yougo1000
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,126
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: April 17, 2010, 11:36:58 am »

Bush beats Reagans record

528-10

Logged
justW353
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,693
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -3.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: April 17, 2010, 11:38:00 am »


Huh?
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,987
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: April 17, 2010, 03:27:28 pm »



Bush Sr./Quayle-346 EV
Clitnon/Gore-192 EV
Logged
Psychic Octopus
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,958
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: April 18, 2010, 01:35:46 am »

Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,616
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: April 27, 2010, 03:17:19 pm »

Bush Sr. was a hero for us all.
Logged
cpeeks
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 699
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: April 28, 2010, 04:02:06 pm »
« Edited: April 28, 2010, 04:06:35 pm by cpeeks »

I dont know why the republicans have put forth this myth that Perot cost Bush the election. When Perot came back in the race at October 1, the polls stood at Clinton 55% Bush 35% Perot 7%. On election day it was Clinton 43% Bush 38% Perot 19%. Almost every Perot vote was siphoned off of Clinton. If Perot had not been in the race, Clinton would have clobbered Bush. Clinton led by nearly 30 points after the Democratic convention and the closest Bush ever got without Perot was trailing by 12 points after the republican convention and he lost the bounce with in a week. Clinton consistantly led by 20 plus points. I wish the republicans would get over and realize that Bush would have got hammered by Clinton in of the largest election defeats in history. People were tired of 12 years of the republican rule.
Logged
Should've left the Pangolins alone
Kalwejt
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 55,764


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: April 28, 2010, 04:10:21 pm »


Troll
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,616
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: April 28, 2010, 04:15:15 pm »

Bush Sr. was a hero for us all.
Logged
cpeeks
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 699
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: April 28, 2010, 04:20:33 pm »

How was he a hero?  Getting us involved in Iraq after his national security advisor told Tariq Aziz that the U.S had no interest in getting entangled in the Iraq Kuwait dispute?
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,987
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: April 28, 2010, 04:37:41 pm »

How was he a hero?  Getting us involved in Iraq after his national security advisor told Tariq Aziz that the U.S had no interest in getting entangled in the Iraq Kuwait dispute?

Bush Sr. wasn't a hero, but I feel that his liberation of Kuwait was justified and necessary to protect U.S. interests.
Logged
Apocrypha
Dallasfan65
Moderator
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,806


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: -9.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: April 28, 2010, 05:36:19 pm »

Bush hands Clinton's head right to him.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,616
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: April 28, 2010, 05:50:18 pm »

How was he a hero?  Getting us involved in Iraq after his national security advisor told Tariq Aziz that the U.S had no interest in getting entangled in the Iraq Kuwait dispute?

I was referring more to his service in WWII, but yes the Persian Gulf War was handled well except for leaving Saddam in office to break UN sanctions.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,987
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: April 28, 2010, 05:53:27 pm »

How was he a hero?  Getting us involved in Iraq after his national security advisor told Tariq Aziz that the U.S had no interest in getting entangled in the Iraq Kuwait dispute?

I was referring more to his service in WWII, but yes the Persian Gulf War was handled well except for leaving Saddam in office to break UN sanctions.

No, leaving Saddam in office was smart because it saved the U.S. a lot of money and lives.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,616
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: April 28, 2010, 10:48:36 pm »

and it led to the mess we're in now.
Logged
cpeeks
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 699
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: April 29, 2010, 06:45:27 am »

I believe Bush said the reason he didnt take out Saddam was that it "would have created a power vaccuum in Iraq, led to an imbalance in the region and U.S. forces would have been seen as bitter occupiers in hostile enviroment" Wow. Sounds kinda like whats going on now. W taking out Saddam was moronic, why we ever picked on a small, poor nation to begin with was horrific.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,616
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: April 29, 2010, 05:43:36 pm »

you mean pick on a brutal dictator with mass graves, hangings, and legalized rape. That's ok that kind of thing is coming to this country starting with ACORN. Bush Sr. was smarter than his son on foreign policy and there wasn't as much of a case to take out Saddam in 1991 as there was in 2003. During Clinton's administration, Saddam got away with everything. Literally, he got away with murder.
Logged
cpeeks
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 699
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: April 30, 2010, 07:11:05 am »

So has North Korea, Iran, Sudan, The congo, China,Cuba, Bosnai, are number ally in the region Saudi Arabia. Why havent we went to war with these countries, we just pick and choose. Its not are place to get involved in the countries internal problems.  I could really care less what happens there, and btw were there any ied's, suicide bombers, or any insurgency when Saddam was in power? No. He kept those people in line, and thats all they understand a heavy handed dictator. Give me a break.
Logged
hcallega
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,523
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.10, S: -3.90

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: April 30, 2010, 07:28:31 am »

United States foreign policy in the Middle East has always been based on the balance of power. Removing Saddam would mean more power for Iran. Following our invasion of Kuwait, the Shi'ia people of south Iraq revolted against Saddam, but we did not help. Why? Well we believed that Iran would rapidly "annex" this new region, giving them more power in the region and possibly leading to a second Iran-Iraq War in which Saddam's already broken army would fall. The NeoConservative's don't believe in balance of power, which is why they always opposed containment and supported direct intervention.
Logged
cpeeks
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 699
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: April 30, 2010, 08:20:18 am »

Once we pull out of Iraq a mideast war is gonna break out and it will have nothing to do with Isreal, it is going to be between the Sunni's and Shiites.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines