Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-08-2016, 07:50 PM
 
21,422 posts, read 10,507,691 times
Reputation: 14079

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ummagumma View Post
I think he was very underrated as a President. He was a thinker, very well educated, willing and able to compromise, unfortunately he ran against Slick Willie and anyone would've lost that race.
Bush would have beat Clinton if Ross Perot didn't shave off some of his votes in '92.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-08-2016, 08:16 PM
 
Location: Type 0.73 Kardashev
11,110 posts, read 9,770,079 times
Reputation: 40161
Quote:
Originally Posted by katygirl68 View Post
Bush would have beat Clinton if Ross Perot didn't shave off some of his votes in '92.
No, he would not have. There isn't a shred of evidence to support this thing that Republicans tell themselves because they just can't face the reality of having lost an election to Bill Clinton.

*In November 1992 President George HW Bush had an approval rating below 40%. The worst-ever approval rating for any President of successfully won reelection was that of his son, at 48%.

*Ross Perot was not a conservative. He was pro-choice. He was in favor of strict gun control. He opposed organized prayer in public schools. He supported tax hikes on the wealthy. He advocated a 50 cent/gallon hike on the gasoline tax. He supported increased pay for public school teachers. He supported national health care in the form of a single-payer system (universal Medicare - ie, ObamaCare on steroids). He opposed free trade - opposition to NAFTA was his signature issue.

Do you think there were millions of pro-choice, pro-gun control, anti-free trade Republicans who wanted tax hikes and universal healthcare flocking to the Perot ticket?

*Clinton won by a margin of almost 6%. For Perot to have thrown the election, his voters would have had to have broken 2-1 for Bush just to make the election a tossup. But no exit polls showed this happening.

*Clinton's lead increased when Perot exited the race in July and narrowed when he rejoined in October. See how Clinton suddenly jumps out into a big lead in July? That's when Perot left the race in a huff. With Perot out of the race, Clinton suddenly staked out a big lead. That means Perot voters, without Perot to vote for, with mostly going to Clinton, not Bush.


And then when Perot parachuted back into the race in October, suddenly the race tightens. Perot was drawing disproportionately more Clinton voters than Bush voters.


In fact, during the two months Perot was out of the race, not one single head-to-head poll had Bush beating Clinton. Clinton led every single one. And it wasn't even close - the closest Bush was able to pull to Clinton during that time was 9%. Losing by 9% as a high-water mark is pretty bad.

*In 1996, when Perot's share of the electorate dropped from 19% to 8%, Clinton benefited. If Perot voters were supposedly erstwhile Republicans, then should have disproportionately gone to Dole. But no - Clinton took in most of them, which is why his margin of victory increased to 8.5% - and he got more votes than Dole and Perot combined.

Like I said, there simply is no evidence to support the notion that Perot cost Bush the 1992 election. Not only is there no evidence whatsoever for it, all the evidence - which I have listed in considerable details - shows otherwise.

By the way, I'm not anti-GHW Bush. I think he's a very underrated President, probably the most so of my lifetime. But he didn't lose because of Ross Perot. That much is crystal clear.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2016, 08:49 AM
 
9,981 posts, read 8,565,402 times
Reputation: 5664
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati View Post
In fact, during the two months Perot was out of the race, not one single head-to-head poll had Bush beating Clinton. Clinton led every single one. And it wasn't even close - the closest Bush was able to pull to Clinton during that time was 9%. Losing by 9% as a high-water mark is pretty bad.

By the way, I'm not anti-GHW Bush. I think he's a very underrated President, probably the most so of my lifetime. But he didn't lose because of Ross Perot. That much is crystal clear.
No, this is not right. It is the informed consensus of experts that George Bush would
have won the 1992 election easily if Ross Perot was not in the race.

It is also the informed consensus of experts that Bob Dole would have won or
came very close to winning in 1996 if Perot was not in the race.

Two basic reasons. The Democratic Party had a ceiling of support in 1992 of
around 45% of the voting population. When Clinton stood for re-election, that
number increased to 50%. The larger reason, however, is the Electoral College.
You can look at state results and easily infer that Bush would have won the
more conservative-minded states which he only lost due to Perot syphoning.
The Democrats of those states voted for Clinton. Perot voters were not open
to voting for Clinton in these states. Look at the numbers. Just some examples
include Pennsylvania, Colorado, Tennessee, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin,
etc.. the list goes on and on. A re-distribution of Perot votes to Bush or Clinton
would have resulted in a Bush Electoral College victory.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2016, 09:43 AM
 
Location: Type 0.73 Kardashev
11,110 posts, read 9,770,079 times
Reputation: 40161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball7 View Post
No, this is not right. It is the informed consensus of experts that George Bush would
have won the 1992 election easily if Ross Perot was not in the race.
No.

No one who has a clue thinks that a President with an approval rating of 38% and who trailed Bill Clinton in every last head-to-head poll when Perot was not in the race (from July to October 1992) thinks Bush would have won the race.

Quote:
It is also the informed consensus of experts that Bob Dole would have won or
came very close to winning in 1996 if Perot was not in the race.
Can you read?

Bill Clinton got more votes in 1996 than Bob Dole and Ross Perot combined.

Quote:
Two basic reasons. The Democratic Party had a ceiling of support in 1992 of
around 45% of the voting population.
Wrong. Again.

Democratic candidates got 50.1% of votes in House races in 1992 (Republicans got only 45.1%) and Democrats got 49.2% of votes in Senate races in 1992 (Republicans got only 44.4%).

Quote:
When Clinton stood for re-election, that
number increased to 50%. The larger reason, however, is the Electoral College.
You can look at state results and easily infer that Bush would have won the
more conservative-minded states which he only lost due to Perot syphoning.
What 'conservative-minded states'? OK, Clinton won AZ, LA, AR, MO, TN, KY, WV - but that's only 58 Electoral votes in those states. And since Clinton-Gore won 379 votes in the Electoral College in 1996, that still leaves them with 321 votes - far more than the 270 needed to win. Furthermore, in AR, LA and WV (20 total EC votes) Clinton got more than 50% of the vote, meaning that even if you cluelessly think that Dole would have gotten every single Perot would, Clinton still would have won those states.

Even if you toss FL, OH, NV and IA into the red column, Clinton-Gore still easily wins the Electoral College. And the rest of the states are ones that Democrats have won in every single Presidential election since 1992. The situation is the same in 1992, when Clinton-Gore won 370 Electoral College votes.

You know, you should have actually looked at the 1996 election before you made these absurd and easily-refuted claims.

Quote:
The Democrats of those states voted for Clinton. Perot voters were not open
to voting for Clinton in these states.

Look at the numbers. Just some examples
include Pennsylvania, Colorado, Tennessee, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin,
etc.. the list goes on and on. A re-distribution of Perot votes to Bush or Clinton
would have resulted in a Bush Electoral College victory.
Washington? Wisconsin? Those states even voted for Dukakis in the 1988 Bush landslide, yet you expect us to think they wouldn't vote for Clinton? They voted for Kerry. They voted for Gore.

You have no idea what you're talking about. You just can't handle the reality that Bill Clinton beat two different Republicans.

Let me repeat - Ross Perot was pro-choice, pro-gun control, anti-free trade, pro-tax increases, anti-school prayer, and pro-national healthcare. And yet your only answer to that is "Nuh uh!".

Go ahead, post a single exit poll showing that Perot voters preferred Bush to Clinton? You can't. They don't exist. The only way your idea works is that if you can prove that almost all Perot voters preferred Bush to Clinton. But you have no evidence for that, and Perot's positions are more left than right, so it doesn't make a lick of sense.

Go ahead, explain to us your delusional idea that Clinton couldn't win states that Dukakis won (WA, WI)? You can't.

Go ahead, explain to us the math by which Perot cost Clinton states like AR, LA and WV when Clinton was winning 50%+ of the votes in those states (do you understand math? do you realize that when you have 50+% of the vote, that means that you have more than every single other candidate in the race combined?)

You've got nothing. You haven't a shred of evidence. Your entire argument consists of ignoring the mounds of evidence that refutes what you really, really, really wish was true, and expecting us to believe absurd assertions that I've shown to be wrong, not by my opinion but factually incorrect.

The only people desperately clinging to the 'Perot cost Bush the election!' fantasy are propagandists like Rush Limbaugh and gullible people who prefer believing things that make them happy to things that are supported by the evidence.

You can't handle reality.

The myths that just won’t die
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:09 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top