1992: Buchanan vs. Clinton

[libertpaulian]

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

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).

[libertpaulian]

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.