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.
I think that in a certain way, Bush was a victim of his own success in foreign policy. In the post-Vietnam period, especially after Jimmy Carter, many Americans ruled out voting for a Democratic president because they didn't think the Democrats were strong enough in standing up to the Soviet Union.
Bush did a good job of unwinding the end of the Cold War, but voters don't reward past performance; they vote based on the future. Without the Soviet threat, Bush (and any Republican) lost a major issue that helped them win 4 of the 5 elections in the 1968-88 period.
I echo some of the earlier posters who said that Bush didn't seem to really want to win. He was yesterday's candidate and it showed. Invariably, elections are about the future, not the past. Bush represented the past and Clinton, for better or worse (mostly worse) represented the future.
I think we have missed presidents like Bush, who had a certain code of honor that has been lacking since the boomers took over the presidency in 1992. A certain honor has been missing from the office since then, and Clinton was a big factor in defining deviancy down in terms of presidential behavior, Moderator cut: You all know not to mention current politicians. .
Last edited by mensaguy; 02-03-2022 at 05:07 PM..
Reason: Read the History forum rules.
This myth has been debunked not only in this thread but in many, many, many other places.
It's taken as an article of faith that Perot threw the election to Clinton. That's why it's usually just presented as fact, and never explained in any way.
Clinton won the election 370 to 168 in the Electoral College. He won 43.0% of the popular vote, while Bush took 37.4% and Perot 18.9%. That is not a small margin. In order for Bush to close the gap, Perot's voters would have had to have otherwise intended to vote for Bush over Clinton by a margin of 12.05% to 6.65%. In other words, they'd have had to break massively for Bush (by 64% to 36%). Where's the evidence that they would have done so? None is ever presented. Exit polling showed that Perot took an equal share to self-described conservatives and liberals (and even more self-described moderates). In another post I mentioned Perot's myriad important positions that aligned with Clinton (pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-tax increases). It is true that Perot also had positions that aligned with Bush, but that just underscores that he was a moderate, drawing from both nominees in roughly equal amounts. In any event, those who image that at least 64% of Perot voters would have voted for the Republican absent Perot are missing one crucial fact - absent Perot, a significant number of Perot voters wouldn't have bothered voting at all. This is demonstrated by the fact that 1992 saw the highest voter turnout in the eight elections beginning with 1972, when the national voting age was lowered to 18. Why? Because strong third-party candidacies bring out those who would not go to the polls otherwise, because they like the independent but have no use for either of the established parties. Turnout was up that year more than 10% over 1988. It is likely that at least a quarter, and probably a third or more, of Perot voters were not available to either Bush or Clinton. If a quarter aren't, then Bush has to carry the remainder at a 78% clip. In what world is the abortion-friendly, gun-hating, taxes-advocating Perot so appealing to that many Bush voters instead of to Clinton voters? It simply makes zero sense.
Now, one might point out that it is the Electoral College, not the popular vote, that determines the winner. But since they do correlate most of the time, the vote is a useful proxy. And the onus is on those making the claim to demonstrate it. What states in Clinton's column stand out as unusual from 1992? None in particular. He won West Virginia! Yeah, so did Dukakis. He did well in the South! Yeah, he was from Arkansas. He did even better in the South in 1996, when Perot's vote total crashed from 19% to 8%. If Perot was so influential, Clinton should have done worse in the South (and everywhere) in 1996 as erstwhile Republican voters 'came home' - but that never happened, and Clinton got more votes than Dole and Perot combined. It is possible that Perot did have influence a state or two. He might've pushed Ohio to Clinton, and there's some evidence that Clinton might've carried Arizona but for Perot (he did in 1996, again, when Perot was much less of an influence). But let's pretend that Bush should have had Ohio and Arizona - all right, that leaves Clinton with 349 Electoral College votes, 79 more than the 270 required to win (actually, 269 - the House would have gone with Clinton had there been a tie).
But Clinton only carried one really close state: Georgia, 13 EC votes. And only one other state by less than 2%: New Hampshire, 4 EC votes. And only three other states by less than 3%: Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, 22 total EC votes. And only one other state by less than 4%: Kentucky, 8 EC votes. And he carried five of those states, three of them by much larger margins, in 1996 (yet again, when Perot was much less of an influence). And even if we pretend that all those states were 'thrown' by Perot to Bush? Well, Clinton still wins 302 Electoral College votes, 32 more than needed for victory.
One final word, this time about NAFTA. It hurt Clinton more than Bush. In 1992, the Republican Party was the party of free trade. The Democrats? Not so much. In the past decade, that has flipped - more Democrats than Republicans support free trade agreements. And Clinton came out in October of 1992 in support of NAFTA. Yet the Democratic base included organized, which was more important to them three decades ago, and which strenuously opposed NAFTA. So Bush and Clinton agreed on NAFTA, but only one of them, in so doing, was going against the wishes of a major constituency: Clinton. And Perot, the alternative, was adamantly opposed (remember the "giant sucking sound"?).
Bush was no Reagan and could not muster the support from that group. Meanwhile Clinton was a fresh face, could campaign rings around Bush, was smarter, and was from the south. Perot stole some of Bush's votes and pushed Bush over to the right but didn't really have much of an effect on Clinton, as I recall. GOP voters going for Perot might have considered Clinton if Perot was not there...or stayed home.
Unlike more recent elections, I don't recall there being a groundswell to vote against any of the candidates although Perot seemed like a loose cannon to some.
After reading the most recent posts to this thread, I mentally summed up the 1992 election as the Patrician vs the Politician vs the Populist - and the Politician won.
Certain groups in America loved Reagan.......but MANY did not and this goes back to some of his "work" as Governor of California. Bush wasn't hated to the same degree but still represented some dark times for many people. Clinton was a breath of fresh air. Didn't hurt that he was the first Baby Boomer President. I'm certain many folks that are now in their 60's and 70's were happy to vote for one of their own.
I'm only 36...so just a 1st-grader when Clinton got elected. Even I remember the excitement over his inauguration. I also vaguely remember one of the 1992 Presidential debates. Feel like it was on ABC...might have even been a townhall. A lady asked George Bush a question about working a full-time job, not being on welfare but still needing help (something like that). I remember my mom watching his slow response and thinking "yeah, Clinton is winning this." Bush probably had one of the best resumes we've ever seen on a U.S. President, especially in modern times but campaigning wasn't his strong suit. Dubya wasn't nearly as smart as Pops but he had the charisma that his dad and brother lacked.
Certain groups in America loved Reagan.......but MANY did not and this goes back to some of his "work" as Governor of California. Bush wasn't hated to the same degree but still represented some dark times for many people. Clinton was a breath of fresh air. Didn't hurt that he was the first Baby Boomer President. I'm certain many folks that are now in their 60's and 70's were happy to vote for one of their own.
I'm only 36...so just a 1st-grader when Clinton got elected. Even I remember the excitement over his inauguration. I also vaguely remember one of the 1992 Presidential debates. Feel like it was on ABC...might have even been a townhall. A lady asked George Bush a question about working a full-time job, not being on welfare but still needing help (something like that). I remember my mom watching his slow response and thinking "yeah, Clinton is winning this." Bush probably had one of the best resumes we've ever seen on a U.S. President, especially in modern times but campaigning wasn't his strong suit. Dubya wasn't nearly as smart as Pops but he had the charisma that his dad and brother lacked.
I think everyone reaches a point in life when--well they aren't firing on eight cylinders anymore. By 1992, Bush was 68 years old.
It varies with each individual. People tend to fade gradually rather than all at once. For example, on a different day George Bush's performance might have been better than it was during that debate. As it was, he seemed tired, irritable, and non-responsive at times.
Bush's best days had come and gone. Perhaps, if he had been elected President instead of Reagan he would have been at the top of his form from 1981 to 1988. The first year or two of his presidency went all right too. He ordered Operation Desert Storm after Iraq invaded Kuwait and our military pushed Iraq out. The operation went well. However, the reality is that by 1992, he wasn't doing so well. It seemed during that campaign that his heart wasn't really in it. He seemed an old man that couldn't seem to realize the Cold War had ended and the country needed to figure out how to move forward. The problem was most of us did realize that and were very eager to move on to something else.
Clinton offered something new and energy. It would ultimately turn out to have some flaws. Voters, though were willing to take that chance.
Former Nebraska governor and US senator Bob Kerrey said in 1995 that "Clinton's an unusually good liar. Unusually good. Do you realize that?" Clinton also had a very good campaign team in 1992 that didn't mind going beyond the usual dishonesty that campaigns typically use in order to win.
And with both the Clinton and Perot teams ganging up on Bush 41 and not attacking each other, it inevitably prevented the Bush team from focusing its responses effectively.
Former Nebraska governor and US senator Bob Kerrey said in 1995 that "Clinton's an unusually good liar. Unusually good. Do you realize that?" Clinton also had a very good campaign team in 1992 that didn't mind going beyond the usual dishonesty that campaigns typically use in order to win.
And with both the Clinton and Perot teams ganging up on Bush 41 and not attacking each other, it inevitably prevented the Bush team from focusing its responses effectively.
Spin, spin, spin...
Ross Perot didn't begin teasing a run for President until late February 1992, on the Larry King Show. By this time, Bush's ratings were already in the 30s. That cannot be attributed to Perot. Perot dropped out in July, but Bush's worst numbers (29%) came in August. Bush's numbers recovered somewhat in October, which coincided with Perot's reentry into the race. So it's not even true that Bush's poor numbers even correlated with Perot's presence in the race.
But your post does illustrate what the whole "Perot cost Bush the election!" notion is all about. It's rooted in the visceral dislike of Bill Clinton that is so intense that people simply cannot bring themselves to accept what is the obvious reality that he beat George H.W. Bush. So excuses are invented. "Perot dunnit!" "Clinton lied!"
This is the history forum. It's not about soothing someone feelings that have been hurt by the way political history played out.
Yes to most of the above. He was a poor candidate, a seriously uninspiring speaker, came across as weak, and it really seemed to me that he didn't want to win. Him puking over whoever the Chariman Mao was that year didn't help any.
Clinton is best not underestimated, though. I lived in Arkansas and watched him move on up and knew what he was all about. He was called Slick Willy then and still is. But two weak candidates...
The Bush family has IMO achieved way past their pay grades and levels of incompetence. W was a loser, lucky he had a bigger loser to run against. Big Dummy Algore. THIS is the best the United States of America can do? Lord help us all.
Al Gore was a loser? Wasn't he much more intelligent and sincere than W? If Al Gore won, we wouldn't have gone into Iraq, a country that was never a threat to us. Know how many lives were ruined and pain caused by Iraq?
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.
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.
