1992: Jerry Brown the Democratic nominee and Perot doesn’t run

[darklordoftech]

Brown’s running mate can’t be Jesse Jackson.

[President Johnson]

✓ Former Governor Edmund G. Brown (D-CA)/Senator Albert Arnold Gore (D-TN): 325 EV. (51.77%)
President George H.W. Bush (R-TX)/Vice President J. Danforth Quayle (R-IN): 213 EV. (46.82%)

[brucejoel99]

Perot endorses Brown, Brown wins by a fair margin, though smaller than Clinton's in real life because Brown's unorthodox ideas would probably lose him some support.

As for his presidency, he's likely to be even less successful domestically than Clinton was in his first term. Clinton's budget just barely passed by one vote; Brown's would have so many conflicting elements (like a flat tax rate & a higher corporate tax rate simultaneously) that it probably wouldn't be passed. The government could possibly be shut down while Congress scrambles to draft a budget that satisfies their constituents, their donors, & the wrath of Moonbeam all at the same time. It'd be hugely embarrassing for Brown as well as for Democrats generally. Hell, during the 1992 campaign, even those close to Brown expected him to be terrible at PR while President. So, like Clinton, he wouldn't have been very persuasive when it came to advocating for bold policies.

The million dollar question would be: does Brown pivot & co-opt GOP policies to get reelected as Clinton did? If yes, then he wins a second term come 1996. If no, then Brown's best hope to stay in office would be to attack the GOP Congress & boast of an improved economy.

(Also, one minor potential change from real life would be that Colin Powell might've been promoted to the rank of Five-Star General. In real life, Clinton's team prevented him from getting the promotion, possibly due to the fact that he was touted as a GOP challenger in 1996. A different President (not just Brown, it could very well have been anyone else) might not be so suspicious of Powell, who at the time wasn't yet politically active, & he just might get that coveted fifth star.)

[darklordoftech]

The million dollar question would be: does Brown pivot & co-opt GOP policies to get reelected as Clinton did? If yes, then he wins a second term come 1996. If no, then Brown's best hope to stay in office would be to attack the GOP Congress & boast of an improved economy.

Brown could work with the GOP to enact the flat tax and to abolish the Department of Education.

[538Electoral]

294-244

[Sir Mohamed]

HW was doomed due to 12th year GOP fatigue and a lame ecomomy. His foreign policy accomplishments were widely praised, but this wasn't the decisive issue in the '92 campaign against any challenger. I think Brown could have been the first elected Dem prez without major support from the South, but that he would have fared better in some western states than Clinton did at the time.

✓ Former Governor Jerry Brown (D-CA)/Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA): 320 EVs.; 51.1%
President George Bush (R-TX)/Vice President Dan Quayle (R-IN): 218 EVs.; 46.9%

[brucejoel99]

HW was doomed due to 12th year GOP fatigue and a lame ecomomy. His foreign policy accomplishments were widely praised, but this wasn't the decisive issue in the '92 campaign against any challenger.

I wouldn't say those things necessarily "doomed" him. For one thing, had Bush not given in to the Democrats & raised taxes, then he wouldn't have cost himself a lot of his support & credibility. The impact of that alone on his loss was pretty significant.

[darklordoftech]

HW was doomed due to 12th year GOP fatigue and a lame ecomomy. His foreign policy accomplishments were widely praised, but this wasn't the decisive issue in the '92 campaign against any challenger.

I wouldn't say those things necessarily "doomed" him. For one thing, had Bush not given in to the Democrats & raised taxes, then he wouldn't have cost himself a lot of his support & credibility. The impact of that alone on his loss was pretty significant.

Where did the anti-tax voters go? Did they vote for Perot? Did they stay home?

[brucejoel99]

HW was doomed due to 12th year GOP fatigue and a lame ecomomy. His foreign policy accomplishments were widely praised, but this wasn't the decisive issue in the '92 campaign against any challenger.

I wouldn't say those things necessarily "doomed" him. For one thing, had Bush not given in to the Democrats & raised taxes, then he wouldn't have cost himself a lot of his support & credibility. The impact of that alone on his loss was pretty significant.

Where did the anti-tax voters go? Did they vote for Perot? Did they stay home?

Unknown as the 1992 exit poll didn't ask voters about their positions concerning the pledge, but we all know that not only did Buchanan repeatedly cited the pledge as an example of a broken promise in the primary, but then Clinton (the moderate that he is) cited the quotation & questioned Bush's trustworthiness. To suggest that his failure to keep the pledge wasn't a reason for his defeat would be unwise.

[dw93]

HW was doomed due to 12th year GOP fatigue and a lame ecomomy. His foreign policy accomplishments were widely praised, but this wasn't the decisive issue in the '92 campaign against any challenger.

I wouldn't say those things necessarily "doomed" him. For one thing, had Bush not given in to the Democrats & raised taxes, then he wouldn't have cost himself a lot of his support & credibility. The impact of that alone on his loss was pretty significant.

Where did the anti-tax voters go? Did they vote for Perot? Did they stay home?

Unknown as the 1992 exit poll didn't ask voters about their positions concerning the pledge, but we all know that not only did Buchanan repeatedly cited the pledge as an example of a broken promise in the primary, but then Clinton (the moderate that he is) cited the quotation & questioned Bush's trustworthiness. To suggest that his failure to keep the pledge wasn't a reason for his defeat would be unwise.

The pledge was part of it, but not enough on its own. The economy, a desire for change after 12 years of Republican rule (I think the Dems could've eeked out a win in 88 had someone stronger than Dukakis been nominated), and Bush running an awful campaign in 92, had more to do with Bush's loss than the broken tax pledge.

[Senator-elect Spark]

Former Governor Jerry Brown (D-CA)/Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA): 277 EVs, 51%
President George H.W. Bush (R-TX)/Vice President Dan Quayle (R-IN): 261 EVs, 48%

Bush still falters, Brown wins a squeaker.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I voted for Brown in the 1992 FL Democratic Primary.  I did not think he would win, but I thought him the best candidate running.  I certainly didn't want to see Bush 41 reelected.

Brown/Gephardt (D) - 256 EV
Bush/Quayle (R) - 251 EV
Undecided - 31 EV

What people forget about Jerry Brown is that (A) he went out of office a loser (having been defeated for the Senate in 1982), (B) was considered a bit of a flake with his "Governor Moonbeam" image, and (C) had really reinvented himself for the 1982 campaign; he was running as a "labor" candidate, often campaigning with auto workers, and while that's why I voted for him, that was a much different niche than what he had run on in the past.

In THIS race, I would see NH, NJ, ME, and CT as the pivotal states, with NJ being the tipping point state.  CT would be the most likely state to go to the Democrats, due to its cultural liberalism.  That would bring the Democrats to 264 EV.  ME and NH were states that were not keen on the Religious Right, but Bush had spent summers in ME all his life and Kennebunkport, ME was the dateline for much of his Administration.  NH was a state that had deliberately set itself up as a tax haven for Massachusetts (especially Metro Boston) and tax issues had galvanized their voters more than once.  Absent Perot, I believe that these two (2) states may have gone for Bush.  This makes it 264-259 for the Democrats with NJ's 13 EVs in the balance.

It is hard to say how NJ would have gone.  NJ is more like suburban NY than CT, and it's urban areas of Jersey City and Newark are certainly cities.  NJ's population had gained a greater share of minority voters in its electorate by 1992, but it's suburbanites were "low tax" voters, and were preparing to ditch Democratic Governor Jim Florio for raising taxes.  (Florio's loss in 1993 had nothing to do with things Clinton; it was all about taxes.}  It is more unionized than CT, but it had gone Republican at that time in every election since 1964, due to a Catholic working class that abandoned the Democratic Party in large numbers in 1968.  I believe that NJ went Democratic in no small measure because of their posture as the "New Democratic Party" that promised to be more conservative on economics.