The '92 election was a Reagan-recycle Bush v Clinton and a whack conspiracy devotee and all-around loon, Ross Perot (a LOT of those folks became Ron Paul devotees who eventually moved to Trump here in Texas). I get your point that Congressional action was more likely to be a serious pursuit but I was largely referring to GOP Presidential campaigns and administration. There wasn't much difference between Reagan, Bush, Bush and Romney - in policy, style or who ran their campaigns.The rioters wouldn't be able to pick most of the members out of a lineup.
This is not at all how I remember the early nineties. There was something of an void in identity on both sides after the Soviet Union collapsed, which is part of why the 1992 presidential election was so weird.
We then had a few years of real struggle over actual policy stuff (BRAC, balanced budget, the crime bill) with sideshows during Clinton's first Congress about the appropriate use of government force (Waco, Ruby Ridge) and failed health care reform. Being informed matters when you're trying to debate meaningful policy outcomes.
Then Clinton got caught banging an intern in the Oval Office, at which point I would say our modern, divisive political discourse devoid of substance began. There were certainly partisan voices on both sides prior to that point, but that whole year was the first time I can remember domestic politics being dominated by an "us vs. them" debate where compromise was literally impossible since convict/acquit is a binary choice.
Now, pretty much everything is falsely framed that way on both sides of the divide.
But this is the forum for non-POTUS. Shall we return to our regularly scheduled programming? ?