What would have happened if in 1992...

[TheWildCard]

George H.W. Bush won a second term? Would the world be different? if so in what way? Would Quayle have run for or recieved the Republican nomination for President in '96? If not who would have?

Yes its hard to predict but its interesting to speculate.

[Gustaf]

George H.W. Bush won a second term? Would the world be different? if so in what way? Would Quayle have run for or recieved the Republican nomination for President in '96? If not who would have?

Yes its hard to predict but its interesting to speculate.

I think the GOP would have lost in 1996, b/c of an informal term limit. You cannot have the same party in power for too long, people get tired.

[Sibboleth]

...except in Sweden?

[Gustaf]

...except in Sweden?

Well, yeah...we never tire of the good ole Social Democrats... (I DO, but most people don't). We also have a different trend than most other countries, in the US it seems like the incumbent always loses a little towards the end, here everyone but the SAP loses as election day approaches.

[Sibboleth]

That would fit in with the sterotype of Sweden being a stable, pro-incumbent, effeciant, dull country
Is the SAP's slogan "dull but effective"?

[Gustaf]

That would fit in with the sterotype of Sweden being a stable, pro-incumbent, effeciant, dull country
Is the SAP's slogan "dull but effective"?

Their last slogan was "proud, but not satisfied", trying to cope with the fact that they constantly have to criticize all the bad things in society, while having no one else to blame it on.

Well, the stereotype is not completely untrue, I'm afraid...we do have a fair sense of humour though, I believe. Monthy Python is very popular here, for example.

But it's true that the SAP relies a lot on their ability to "get the job done". They are extremely dull, so dull that I am always amazed by young people actually voting for them. But people have confidence in them.

[Sibboleth]

Monty Python is very warped... and very funny

Swedish politics seems to be dull but stable and fairly competent.
French politics is the complete reverse!

[Gustaf]

Monty Python is very warped... and very funny

Swedish politics seems to be dull but stable and fairly competent.
French politics is the complete reverse!

Yes, that's true. Why do you think I am following a foreign country's elections?

Also, we have one election day every fourth year, so you have to wait a lot for each. But since we have so many parties we do get at least one surprisingly good result and one surprisingly bad result every election, so that's keep the excitement up. Also, SAP is always in trouble in polls, so a hint of excitement is always created, and then quickly dissolved on election night by the usually spot on exit polls.

[Gustaf]

Monty Python is very warped... and very funny

Swedish politics seems to be dull but stable and fairly competent.
French politics is the complete reverse!

This was contradicted lat autumn though, when we voted no to the euro. That was a shocker, since we went against the establishement, and it was the first time ever that the SAP lost a referendum. Hopefully, it will make things a little more unpredictable in the future. We do have European elections coming up...

[Sibboleth]

We have them as well... but no one cares about them.
The turnout was 27% in 1999...

[Gustaf]

We have them as well... but no one cares about them.
The turnout was 27% in 1999...

Not in Sweden either, our turnout was 38%, better, but not good. Will you vote, and if so, would you mind saying for whom?

[Sibboleth]

I'm going to vote Labour (part of the P.E.S), although I couldn't care who "wins" control of the European Parliament... as long as it isn't the fascists...

I think that the problem is the fact the European Parliament is toothless and irrelevent.
Give it more power and more people will vote.

[Gustaf]

I'm going to vote Labour (part of the P.E.S), although I couldn't care who "wins" control of the European Parliament... as long as it isn't the fascists...

I think that the problem is the fact the European Parliament is toothless and irrelevent.
Give it more power and more people will vote.

That is certainly one of the problems. But look at the US, they have voter turnout of 35-50% depending on elections, and they still have stronger incentives for it. I think it will be hard to build a legitimacy for a European political entity.

[© Tweed the Younger]

You guys took this one off topic pretty easily too!

[Gustaf]

You guys took this one off topic pretty easily too!

Yep, took 3 posts, and then we hijacked it!

We've turned the Cold Climates thread into a discussion of Norwegian politics, so we're having a field day!

[Sibboleth]

You guys took this one off topic pretty easily too!

I'm skilled at it

[TheWildCard]

Well this thread went into a different direction then first planned... lol

[Gustaf]

Well this thread went into a different direction then first planned... lol

Sorry...

[TheWildCard]

Well this thread went into a different direction then first planned... lol

Sorry...

Eh no problems here.

[Gustaf]

Well this thread went into a different direction then first planned... lol

Sorry...

Eh no problems here.

Good then. What was the original topic again?

[afleitch]

I'm going to pull back to the original question here! If Bush had won in 1992, but the economy had taken a downturn and the Democrats had lost their way (without the Clinton/DNC style stability) Ross Perot would have stood again and would no doubt have won perhaps 22-25% of the vote, if he could say, effectively, that Bush's economic policies were failing America, especially if the US still had a huge budget deficit. I should think that Quayle would get the 96 nomination, although in this scenario, Colin Powell and even (spit) Pat Buchanan could have put up a fight in the primaries. Gore, who ran in 88, and was Clinton's running mate in 92, would have been mad not to stand in 1996. Gephardt too could have held a campaign together, especially if the 1994 Republican sweep of Congress had not happened, in this scenario the Democrats would hold the Senate by this time at least. Whoever got the Democratic nomination would have won in 1996. And I suspect that they would have won re-election in 2000.

[Gustaf]

I'm going to pull back to the original question here! If Bush had won in 1992, but the economy had taken a downturn and the Democrats had lost their way (without the Clinton/DNC style stability) Ross Perot would have stood again and would no doubt have won perhaps 22-25% of the vote, if he could say, effectively, that Bush's economic policies were failing America, especially if the US still had a huge budget deficit. I should think that Quayle would get the 96 nomination, although in this scenario, Colin Powell and even (spit) Pat Buchanan could have put up a fight in the primaries. Gore, who ran in 88, and was Clinton's running mate in 92, would have been mad not to stand in 1996. Gephardt too could have held a campaign together, especially if the 1994 Republican sweep of Congress had not happened, in this scenario the Democrats would hold the Senate by this time at least. Whoever got the Democratic nomination would have won in 1996. And I suspect that they would have won re-election in 2000.

So you're almost suggesting that it might have benefited the Dems to lose the 1992 election, ni the long run?

[© Tweed the Younger]

You know what would have benefited the Dems?  If Clinton has resigned in 1998 with the Monic scandal.  Then gore would have won in 2000 and had a good shot at re-election in 2004.  But America might get tired of ten years of my man Al.

[Nym90]

Yeah, it may have...although it may have made the whole impeachment more legitimate in the eyes of the voters too. A large majority opposed impeachment, but if Clinton had resigned, it would have made the entire thing seem more legitimate. Hard to say exactly what the impact would have been...being the incumbent may have been an advantage for Gore, but maybe not, depending on how he performed.

[© Tweed the Younger]

Yeah, it may have...although it may have made the whole impeachment more legitimate in the eyes of the voters too. A large majority opposed impeachment, but if Clinton had resigned, it would have made the entire thing seem more legitimate. Hard to say exactly what the impact would have been...being the incumbent may have been an advantage for Gore, but maybe not, depending on how he performed.

Gore would have won without the Lewinsky scandal, so if clinton cut it short by resigning, he would have helped out Gore.