How would you have voted in 1992 election with hindsight?

[Lamda]

I would vote for Bush,Bill Clinton was a terrible president and cost the Democrats their majority in the house.
I also would vote for Gerald Ford with hindsight.

[Sirius_]

And the Clinton hate continues.

Also I don't remember a parrot running for president back in '92.

[Lamda]

And the Clinton hate continues.

Also I don't remember a parrot running for president back in '92.

I meant Perot.

[dw93]

With hindsight I'm torn. As I said in a previous post:

If I were alive and over 18 at the time (I was born about 6 months after this election) and had no benefit of hindsight, it'd be an easy Clinton vote. Now with the benefit of hindsight, I'm torn.

On the one hand, Bush would've handled Foreign Policy better than Clinton (though Clinton didn't do a bad job on FP either, he was flawed though), thus I don't think Russia would be such a headache today if a steadier hand was at the helm in the early post Cold War years nor do I think North Korea would. Bush also prevents the 1994 Republican revolution (or at least delays it) so Newt doesn't rise to Speaker of the House, making or politics less bitter and toxic. The gun issue would be less polarized, right wing militias wouldn't be an issue with Waco Happening with a Republican President instead of Clinton, and None of the Clinton's personal baggage would be brought to the White House either.

On the other hand, the budget wouldn't be balanced as there would be no 1993 Budget Bill that raised Taxes and cut spending, Bush may very well get two Supreme Court vacancies to fill if White and Blackmun still retire, and if that happens, Roe v. Wade may very well get overturned, and the Family Medical Leave Law would be delayed or not happen at all. Plus, for better and for worse, Clinton gave the Democratic Party the kick in the ass that it needed after three consecutive landslide loses  (and losing 4 out of 5 elections from 1968-1988), and if he loses, there's a good chance the Democrats would be even weaker and even more moderate in a Bush wins '92 scenario depending on which Democrat is elected to succeed Bush in 1996 (I doubt the GOP would win after 16 years of Republican control of the White House).

[TheSaint250]

I probably would've gone:

1. Perot
2. Clinton
3. Bush

...if judging strictly on policy. However, if taking other actions into account, Clinton sinks into a place of no forgiveness for his horrid decisions.

[F. Joe Haydn]

Bill Clinton

[Lechasseur]

Bush

[Dr. MB]

Perot

[SATW]

H.W.

[Lamda]

With hindsight I'm torn. As I said in a previous post:

If I were alive and over 18 at the time (I was born about 6 months after this election) and had no benefit of hindsight, it'd be an easy Clinton vote. Now with the benefit of hindsight, I'm torn.

On the one hand, Bush would've handled Foreign Policy better than Clinton (though Clinton didn't do a bad job on FP either, he was flawed though), thus I don't think Russia would be such a headache today if a steadier hand was at the helm in the early post Cold War years nor do I think North Korea would. Bush also prevents the 1994 Republican revolution (or at least delays it) so Newt doesn't rise to Speaker of the House, making or politics less bitter and toxic. The gun issue would be less polarized, right wing militias wouldn't be an issue with Waco Happening with a Republican President instead of Clinton, and None of the Clinton's personal baggage would be brought to the White House either.

On the other hand, the budget wouldn't be balanced as there would be no 1993 Budget Bill that raised Taxes and cut spending, Bush may very well get two Supreme Court vacancies to fill if White and Blackmun still retire, and if that happens, Roe v. Wade may very well get overturned, and the Family Medical Leave Law would be delayed or not happen at all. Plus, for better and for worse, Clinton gave the Democratic Party the kick in the ass that it needed after three consecutive landslide loses  (and losing 4 out of 5 elections from 1968-1988), and if he loses, there's a good chance the Democrats would be even weaker and even more moderate in a Bush wins '92 scenario depending on which Democrat is elected to succeed Bush in 1996 (I doubt the GOP would win after 16 years of Republican control of the White House).

Al Gore would run and he would have been much better President than Bill Clinton.

[courts]

perot

[Peanut]

Still Clinton.

[DavidB.]

Clinton.

[America Needs R'hllor]

1. Parrot


2. Clinton

3. Bush
4. Perot

[darklordoftech]

Bush because Clinton's Presidency did more to hurt the Democrats than it did to help them.

[Beet]

Perot because he was pro choice and someone with serious possibility of sexual assault shouldn't be president.

[beaver2.0]

Obviously Perot.

[Lechasseur]

With hindsight I'm torn. As I said in a previous post:

If I were alive and over 18 at the time (I was born about 6 months after this election) and had no benefit of hindsight, it'd be an easy Clinton vote. Now with the benefit of hindsight, I'm torn.

On the one hand, Bush would've handled Foreign Policy better than Clinton (though Clinton didn't do a bad job on FP either, he was flawed though), thus I don't think Russia would be such a headache today if a steadier hand was at the helm in the early post Cold War years nor do I think North Korea would. Bush also prevents the 1994 Republican revolution (or at least delays it) so Newt doesn't rise to Speaker of the House, making or politics less bitter and toxic. The gun issue would be less polarized, right wing militias wouldn't be an issue with Waco Happening with a Republican President instead of Clinton, and None of the Clinton's personal baggage would be brought to the White House either.

On the other hand, the budget wouldn't be balanced as there would be no 1993 Budget Bill that raised Taxes and cut spending, Bush may very well get two Supreme Court vacancies to fill if White and Blackmun still retire, and if that happens, Roe v. Wade may very well get overturned, and the Family Medical Leave Law would be delayed or not happen at all. Plus, for better and for worse, Clinton gave the Democratic Party the kick in the ass that it needed after three consecutive landslide loses  (and losing 4 out of 5 elections from 1968-1988), and if he loses, there's a good chance the Democrats would be even weaker and even more moderate in a Bush wins '92 scenario depending on which Democrat is elected to succeed Bush in 1996 (I doubt the GOP would win after 16 years of Republican control of the White House).

Al Gore would run and he would have been much better President than Bill Clinton.

Tbh I don't think Gore was the type who could have gotten the nomination without having been VP, but I agree that a Democrat would have won in 1996 and the country would be better off had Bush won in 1992.

[thumb21]

Perot

[DC Al Fine]

HW with or without hindsight.

[DPKdebator]

Perot

[Esteemed Jimmy]

Perot

[darklordoftech]

I wonder what effects Bush being the one to sign the crime bill would have.

[UlmerFudd]

Bush

[darklordoftech]

Were there any foreign policy differences between Bush 41 and Clinton?