[R_G]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_presidential_election

It seems to be very groundbreaking, although you could argue the same for the 1912 election.

What would have been the case had Bush Senior won??? Could the U.S. have seen 4 straight terms of Bush??

What if Perot didn't pull out halfway through, you think there's a chance in hell he might have won some states?

Considering if it ended 1. Bush, 2. Perot.

Perot would have had more backing in 96 and then what??

[The Immortal Goon]

Economically the country probably would have done about the same - Bush I had a basic understanding of mathematics that Reagan and Bush II seemed to have lacked, ie you can't spend shit loads of money you don't have forever and ever with no consequences. Bush was rather crippled by the fact that a lot of Republicans wanted to keep living in happy-time-fairy land where you could spend gigantic amounts of money on the military without taxing anyone.

Clinton was largely able to beat him with that with the infamous, "It's the economy stupid" line as - strangely - eight years of what Bush himself had called "Voodoo Economics" under Reagan had fucked things up. On the other hand Perot led the charge to pretending math didn't exist and so Bush got squeezed out and lost.

Internationally Clinton was a pretty popular guy so it probably didn't hurt to have him in office in a lot of ways.

I seriously doubt that Bush II would have been able to follow Bush I. It would have reeked to to many people of passing a crown, and deep down no American would really accept something so blatant - they'd at least need a buffer between father and son.

[R_G]

lol, well, there was only one election in between a Republican Bush nominee.

Can you imagine in maybe 8 years, his daughter running? lol


Amazing how Reagan was voted #1 American all time.

So I think you underestimate the idiocy of the general public.

[Manuel]

The name Bush will not follow the title President for at least 100 years, if ever again.

[R_G]

You underestimate the long term memory of the American populace.

[Dr House]

eight years of what Bush himself had called "Voodoo Economics" under Reagan had fucked things up.

19.9 million jobs gained and a 25% inflation-adjusted total increase in tax revenue is hardly what I'd call "fucking things up". A soaring deficit and 4% inflation are very bad, but they were due to runaway spending and a loose monetary policy, not Reagan's fiscal policy.

-Dr House

[edwardsdv]

What is the difference between runaway spending and loose monetary policy and fiscal policy. If you're bad with money you have a bad fiscal policy.

And please, Reagan could have ONLY created jobs by spending billions of dollars that didn't exist to expand weapons systems. Not to mention this spending made the transition between the Cold war and a 'normal' economy painful when it plainly didn't have to be.