The only reason why Bush I lost is summed up with one initial and two words.
H. Ross Perot.
Yep, Perot definitely pulled votes from Bush.
Perot would have been better than either Bush or Clinton. NAFTA was the single greatest sell out of this country ever with the exception of granting MFN status to China.
And yes, Bush II did more harm to this country by dragging us into a middle east war in which we had no business than Johnson did with Vietnam, or at least similar.
We don’t need, and the Republic cannot survive, having an Empire.
Without the Reagan effect, we probably would have had only one or two terms of Republicans before switching to Dim. Since Truman left office (which ended 5 WH terms in a row for Dims with FDR/Truman), the norm has been only 1 or 2 terms in the WH for a party, with the lone exception being 3 in a row for Republicans with Reagan/Bush Sr.
The only people lamenting the rejection of the Bush family of losers are the neoconnunists.
Perot wouldn’t have been a factor had bush41 not been such a gun-grabbing, globalist rino
Sure, the media overhyped the recession with endless pieces on food lines and hundreds applying for dozens of job openings. The Bush family legacy, and the Republican brand, isn’t helped by rhyming with Middle East wars and recessions. W was perhaps the better of the two but his administration was a disappointment particularly in the second term.
Perot wasn’t serious about winning once he dropped out during summer before getting back in. He was more America First than globalist particularly in trade.
Trump can’t win in 2024. He’s made himself unelectable which is disappointing because I don’t see a strong ideological successor competing for the nomination in 2024. It’s definitely NOT DeSantis.
No, Bush would have lost regardless.