What would the next four years of his presidency look like? How would he have handled the first bombing at the World Trade towers? Would the Republicans still manage to take the House in '94?
The second term of George H. W. Bush?
- Thread starter Hierophant
- Start date
Lost the game
Banned
In short, no. The incumbent party almost always loses seats in congress during midterms, barring extreme circumstances such as 9/11 and its effect on the 2002 midterms.
Someone's doing a TL on this very subject at the moment, though they haven't got to the 92 election yet.
I think Bush's second term is quite simelar to Clinton's first term in many ways. Perhaps he responds more forcefully to the WTC Bombings-the fact that he's not a new president finding his feet at the time will help.
Their's obviously no failed Health Care Legislation.
I can't see the republicans taking both houses the way they did in OTL-I think the 'Contract With America' was a Backlash to what Clinton had been doing in his first 2 years. Gingritch and co will probably lose seats in the midterms, particularly since their party would have had control of the Whitehouse for 14 years by that point.
A Democrat is pretty much asured victory in 1996 against Dole (I still think it'd be him). If Clinton wasn't the nominee in 1992 (which is one obvious way Bush could have won), he probably clinches the nod in 1996. If Clinton was the nominee in 1992, I think Gore is an obvious front runner (though I don't think he'd end up with the nomination). Wasn't Cuomo hoping for a scenario like this? If so he could be a favourite (depending on whether he holds on in 1994, I'm not sure why exactly he lost in OTL). He's probably old news by that point however, so I don't think that he'd be nominated either. Perhaps Doug Wilder or Ann Richards could be in with a shot? I know Richards lost to Bush in 1994 IOTL, but the Bush name may be unpopular at that point in this Timeline.
Cuomo did decide to run in 1996, as did the other major Democrats who could have run. Keep in mind, before the 92 election, it was assumed Bush was going to win due to popularity. It was only when the economy started to hurt that Bush lost. Clinton was a dark horse.
Can you please provide a link to the TL? I would be very interested in reading it.
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=233045
Looking at it, the TL hasn't been updated in a while, so I'm not sure if it's set to continue. As you can see, the 92 election is yet to take place.
I agree; after 16 years of a GOP White House, the electorate would be good and ready for a change. See 1948-1952; Dewey came within an ace of beating Truman in 1948, when the Democrats had been in for 16 years, and I think just about any Republican would have won in 1952, when the 20-year mark was reached.
Bush probably would have been looked upon more favorably as a president than he currently is. If you look at the economic data from the early 90s, the United States had actually exited out of the recession at the end of Bush's term. They were growing jobs at a far more consistent and stable rate throughout the 1992 election than they had a year prior, which really was the reason Bush lost the election.
Even though 1992 was rough, it was really the '91 economic struggles that cemented Bush as a one-term president. He couldn't shake how bad the economy got a year prior, even though by mid-92, the non-farm payroll started seeing more sustained gains.
So, believing the economy recovery had happened in 1992 instead of under Clinton, he gets much of the credit for the economic rebound (and maybe Reagan gets more blame for the recession in the 90s than Bush). In '96, he leaves having steered the country through a successful war, maybe a successful mission in Somalia (that was kind of just left for the Clinton administration to clean up), a return to a strong economy and relative peace around the globe.
Not a bad presidency. In fact, I think historians might claim one of the better presidencies of the 20th Century. Clinton, or whomever runs in '96, would be able to lock up reelection in 2000, since the economic downturn wasn't quite as bad as it would become in '01, and the rest is history.
Even though 1992 was rough, it was really the '91 economic struggles that cemented Bush as a one-term president. He couldn't shake how bad the economy got a year prior, even though by mid-92, the non-farm payroll started seeing more sustained gains.
So, believing the economy recovery had happened in 1992 instead of under Clinton, he gets much of the credit for the economic rebound (and maybe Reagan gets more blame for the recession in the 90s than Bush). In '96, he leaves having steered the country through a successful war, maybe a successful mission in Somalia (that was kind of just left for the Clinton administration to clean up), a return to a strong economy and relative peace around the globe.
Not a bad presidency. In fact, I think historians might claim one of the better presidencies of the 20th Century. Clinton, or whomever runs in '96, would be able to lock up reelection in 2000, since the economic downturn wasn't quite as bad as it would become in '01, and the rest is history.
It certaily would have been interesting from a space prespective. Bush Sr. was probably the only real NASA fan to hold the White House, and the inflation-adjusted NASA budget under his term was the highest ever (yes, higher than during Apollo).
He would probably still bring the Russians into the space station, for the same reasons as Clinton (to keep Russian space workers from going to China and North Korea). More interesting, though, is the possible survival of the First Lunar Outpost project. Indeed, FLO with international involvement (to make it cancel-resistant) might actually happen. Thus, by the mid-2000s, you'd have NASA-led flight to the Moon with European, Canadian, Japanese, and possibly Russian astronauts riding along...
He would probably still bring the Russians into the space station, for the same reasons as Clinton (to keep Russian space workers from going to China and North Korea). More interesting, though, is the possible survival of the First Lunar Outpost project. Indeed, FLO with international involvement (to make it cancel-resistant) might actually happen. Thus, by the mid-2000s, you'd have NASA-led flight to the Moon with European, Canadian, Japanese, and possibly Russian astronauts riding along...
With Bush getting the credit for the economic boom of the '90s, Reagan getting the blame for the earlier economic woes and not being deified by a GOP out of power, and Gingrich not leading the GOP, Republicans stay more moderate. With Cuomo elected in 1996, Democrats stay more liberal. All in all, probably a more balanced political scene than OTL, especially since Gingrich can't snatch most of the Perot voters away from Cuomo, because he's for fair trade. Plus, the man can speak. President Bush probably gives us most of what Clinton did in his first term. President Cuomo probably gives us universal healthcare and some good environmental legislation.
Would Byron White still retire? Blackmun wouldn't.
Would Byron White still retire? Blackmun wouldn't.
This makes me wonder just how his Presidency is actually seen now. I never regarded him as either extraordinarily good or bad, mostly just an average President. Seemed to have been forced to deal with foreign issues all too much (Iraq, Panama, Somalia), and not so competent at dealing with the economy at home... but then, that has managed to sink quite a few Presidents...
Here's a list of Presidential candidates I'd draw up for 1996 from both parties. (Since I love doing these lists). Assuming that Clinton was the nominee in '92 but lost to Bush.
Republicans
Vice President Dan Quayle
Senator Bob Dole
Senator Phil Gramm
Pat Buchanan
Former Ambassador Alan Keyes
Democrats
Governor Bob Casey
Reverend Jesse Jackson
Former Governor Jerry Brown
Senator Bill Bradley
Senator George Mitchell
Congressman Dave McCurdy
Who do I think would have won? From the Republicans, probably Bob Dole, considering that he was the most senior member, although I question whether or not John McCain would try in 1996, when it's wide open. As for the Democrats, I think that some of the stars that might have been considering running wouldn't have. However, I think that it would have come down to a race between Mitchell and McCurdy. My two cents.
Republicans
Vice President Dan Quayle
Senator Bob Dole
Senator Phil Gramm
Pat Buchanan
Former Ambassador Alan Keyes
Democrats
Governor Bob Casey
Reverend Jesse Jackson
Former Governor Jerry Brown
Senator Bill Bradley
Senator George Mitchell
Congressman Dave McCurdy
Who do I think would have won? From the Republicans, probably Bob Dole, considering that he was the most senior member, although I question whether or not John McCain would try in 1996, when it's wide open. As for the Democrats, I think that some of the stars that might have been considering running wouldn't have. However, I think that it would have come down to a race between Mitchell and McCurdy. My two cents.
Paul V McNutt
Banned
I think that Dole is the favorite for the GOP. The Democratic race would have no clear favorite.
Bush 2nd Term in 1992 means no Obama?
Interesting...
In many ways, I don't think there would have been much difference in governance. Sure, we wouldn't have seen the Healthcare battle of '93, and Republican's wouldn't have swept into office in the 1994 midterms. Newt Gingrich would have been a footnote (not a presidential candidate) today. One can also assume that the first World Trade Center explosion would have obviously still occurred, we still would have engaged in Somalia in fall of 1993.
Would Bush have instructed his Attorney General to go after the Branch Davidian's in Waco, Texas? My guess is probably not... but who knows. That episode had impact two years later when Timothy McVey bombed the Federal Building in Oklahoma City. You could make a reasonable argument that the history of those two events would have been different had HW Bush been re-elected.
I think the bigger implications would have been long term. First off, Bush would have received a lot of credit for the economic boom of the 90's. The expansion was already going when he was swept out of office. Had he been re-elected, the economic prosperity and relative peace of the mid-90's would have added tremendously to his legacy... and to this day I think supply-side economics and republican governance would be viewed in a greater light.
Really, the BIGGEST IMPACT long term of a George HW Bush 2nd term would be the politics and presidential succession that would have been set in motion. In 1996 it's easy to surmise that a Democrat wins the election. Not Clinton... perhaps Al Gore? John Kerry? Bob Kerrey? Joe Biden? Bill Bradley? The years between 1996-2000 were exceptionally peaceful and prosperous years. Likely a democrat is re-elected in 2000.
After 2000 it get a little murky... Assume 9/11 still happens... its easy to assume the party in power (likely Democrats) get a lot of the blame handed to them. Remember... the 9/11 commission found the Clinton and G W Bush administrations equally culpable in the events leading up to 9/11. Had one party been in power for several years... it's likely the public would have been eager to see the other party come to power in the next election. Could we have seen a George W. Bush, McCain, or Guiliani elected in 2004? Does the Iraq war happen if a Democrat is in the Whitehouse between 2000-2004? And here's a kicker.... does a political scenario exist where a young, virtually unknown state senator from Illinois rises up to become a senator and then the president in 2008? Interesting thoughts.... but my guess is that the answer would be NO... had George HW Bush been re-elected in 1992... our leaders and perhaps world might look a little different today.
Interesting...
In many ways, I don't think there would have been much difference in governance. Sure, we wouldn't have seen the Healthcare battle of '93, and Republican's wouldn't have swept into office in the 1994 midterms. Newt Gingrich would have been a footnote (not a presidential candidate) today. One can also assume that the first World Trade Center explosion would have obviously still occurred, we still would have engaged in Somalia in fall of 1993.
Would Bush have instructed his Attorney General to go after the Branch Davidian's in Waco, Texas? My guess is probably not... but who knows. That episode had impact two years later when Timothy McVey bombed the Federal Building in Oklahoma City. You could make a reasonable argument that the history of those two events would have been different had HW Bush been re-elected.
I think the bigger implications would have been long term. First off, Bush would have received a lot of credit for the economic boom of the 90's. The expansion was already going when he was swept out of office. Had he been re-elected, the economic prosperity and relative peace of the mid-90's would have added tremendously to his legacy... and to this day I think supply-side economics and republican governance would be viewed in a greater light.
Really, the BIGGEST IMPACT long term of a George HW Bush 2nd term would be the politics and presidential succession that would have been set in motion. In 1996 it's easy to surmise that a Democrat wins the election. Not Clinton... perhaps Al Gore? John Kerry? Bob Kerrey? Joe Biden? Bill Bradley? The years between 1996-2000 were exceptionally peaceful and prosperous years. Likely a democrat is re-elected in 2000.
After 2000 it get a little murky... Assume 9/11 still happens... its easy to assume the party in power (likely Democrats) get a lot of the blame handed to them. Remember... the 9/11 commission found the Clinton and G W Bush administrations equally culpable in the events leading up to 9/11. Had one party been in power for several years... it's likely the public would have been eager to see the other party come to power in the next election. Could we have seen a George W. Bush, McCain, or Guiliani elected in 2004? Does the Iraq war happen if a Democrat is in the Whitehouse between 2000-2004? And here's a kicker.... does a political scenario exist where a young, virtually unknown state senator from Illinois rises up to become a senator and then the president in 2008? Interesting thoughts.... but my guess is that the answer would be NO... had George HW Bush been re-elected in 1992... our leaders and perhaps world might look a little different today.
Oh yeah, George W. Bush doesn't run to avenge his father's loss. And supply-side has less credit than OTL since Bush wasn't a supply-sider. It's also harder for the GOP to start up the Reagan cult with an incumbent President. Bush may be remembered more fondly than Reagan, or about the same.
Paul V McNutt
Banned
1994 ITTL is going to be a good Democratic year. George W Bush probably doesn't get elected governor.
Paul V McNutt
Banned
1989 - 1997 George HW Bush
1997 - 2005 Al Gore
2005 - 2009 Joe Biden
2009 - Mitt Romney
1997 - 2005 Al Gore
2005 - 2009 Joe Biden
2009 - Mitt Romney