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 thought George Bush wasn't for the military. How much people died in the Gulf War? Not as much as the Vietnam war, but enough to make a dent that families felt the hurt after their son or daughter didn't come back. Well maybe not daughter then, but son. Ronald Reagan was for the military. But he was an actor. So the trouble politically during 1980s and Guantanamo bay, Cuba have existed after Ronald Reagan got elected. The military during that time was in high demand. Though no draft for the military was ever implemented during the Reagan years.
This analysis ignores both the Cold War and the increased threat from radical Islam following the Iranian Revolution. President Reagan inherited these from previous administrations.
The American people want quick military victories. Desert Storm was quick and victorious, but left Saddam Hussein in power for a future president to deal with. As a consequence, after the initial spike in Bush 41's favorability ratings, he did not get lasting credit as a successful wartime president.
There is significant empirical evidence, that Perot did not cost Bush the election, but that evidence all comes from the universe where Perot actually ran. If Perot fundamentally reset the terms of the 1992 election, then this evidence cannot answer our actual question.
Put differently, you simply cannot unwind the millions of choices – some made by voters, some made by campaign officials – that were occasioned by the entry of a billionaire candidate who drew 19% of the vote, and, at one point, almost 40% of poll respondents. Yes, these voters may have indicated that they would have split evenly between Bush and Clinton, but that is only after a campaign of listening to Perot’s critiques and elevation of the deficit as an issue; at best, this only suggests what might have happened had Perot not appeared on the ballot on Election Day. Yes, these voters may be demographically similar to Clinton voters, but that is only after Perot had broken many of them away in the first place (and they are ultimately dissimilar in an important way: They didn’t vote for Clinton).
It’s also entirely possible that none of this mattered. Had Perot not run, Clinton still would have appeared on MTV, still would have played the sax on “Arsenio Hall,” still would have had a good convention, and still would have had solid debates. Most importantly, the economic recovery still would have lagged. If forced to choose, that is probably where I come down.
But it is also possible that, absent Perot, Clinton would not have had an opportunity to find his footing, his sax playing would have looked desperate, and the fact that we were, in fact, in a recovery would have mattered more. We cannot not know. https://www.aei.org/articles/dont-kn...rot-cost-bush/
[i]There is significant empirical evidence, that Perot did not cost Bush the election, but that evidence all comes from the universe where Perot actually ran. If Perot fundamentally reset the terms of the 1992 election, then this evidence cannot answer our actual question.
The empirical evidence most certainly does not all come from the universe in which Perot ran.
1) As I have previously noted, Bush was below 40% approval rating before Perot even began flirting with a run (which happened in late February 1992), which is to say he was fatally vulnerable in the universe in which Perot as a candidate or even merely a prospective one did not yet exist.
Let's compare this to incumbent Presidents in the year of their reelection bid:
[I'm going to skip 2020 because of forum rules - but feel free to look it up yourself]
2012:
Obama was never below 45% approval in the relevant time frame.
2004:
George W. Bush was never below 46% in the relevant time frame.
1996:
Clinton was never below 52% in the relevant time frame.
1992:
George H.W. Bush was at 39% before Perot began making noise about running and never - not before Perot declared his campaign, and not when Perot was out of the race from July thru October (Bush actually had his worst numbers overall during this time) - managed to claw his way any higher than 42%. LOST REELECTION
1984:
Ronald Reagan was never below 52% in the relevant time frame.
1980:
Carter's numbers were between the low 40s and low 30s during the relevant time frame. LOST REELECTION
1976:
Ford's numbers bounced around between 50% (in March) and 45% (in the summer). LOST REELECTION
1972:
Nixon was never below 52% in the relevant time frame.
I'll stop here, because it takes us back to before the beginning of the Sixth Party System as well as into the era when polling was in its infancy and sporadic. Nonetheless, the result is clear - even before Ross Perot entered the Presidential race (even unofficially), GHW Bush's numbers were worse than any modern President except Jimmy Carter (who lost in a landslide), and even worse than Gerald Ford (who also lost).
2) During the entirety of the Sixth Party system (and even back into the later stages of the Fifth), no party has managed to hold the White House for four consecutive terms, and in only one out of the last nine elections in which the President's party has held the White House for eight or more years has that party prevailed.
***********************
The thesis that maybe Ross Perot, in some way that left no statistical evidence, caused Bush to lose in 1992, is akin to those who claim that Nader tanked it for Kerry in 2004, Anderson tanked it for Carter in 1980, Wallace for Humphrey in 1968. It's only so much hand-waving by those who don't actually have any evidence for their claim.
The empirical evidence most certainly does not all come from the universe in which Perot ran.
1) As I have previously noted, Bush was below 40% approval rating before Perot even began flirting with a run (which happened in late February 1992), which is to say he was fatally vulnerable in the universe in which Perot as a candidate or even merely a prospective one did not yet exist.
Let's compare this to incumbent Presidents in the year of their reelection bid:
[I'm going to skip 2020 because of forum rules - but feel free to look it up yourself]
2012:
Obama was never below 45% approval in the relevant time frame.
2004:
George W. Bush was never below 46% in the relevant time frame.
1996:
Clinton was never below 52% in the relevant time frame.
1992:
George H.W. Bush was at 39% before Perot began making noise about running and never - not before Perot declared his campaign, and not when Perot was out of the race from July thru October (Bush actually had his worst numbers overall during this time) - managed to claw his way any higher than 42%. LOST REELECTION
1984:
Ronald Reagan was never below 52% in the relevant time frame.
1980:
Carter's numbers were between the low 40s and low 30s during the relevant time frame. LOST REELECTION
1976:
Ford's numbers bounced around between 50% (in March) and 45% (in the summer). LOST REELECTION
1972:
Nixon was never below 52% in the relevant time frame.
I'll stop here, because it takes us back to before the beginning of the Sixth Party System as well as into the era when polling was in its infancy and sporadic. Nonetheless, the result is clear - even before Ross Perot entered the Presidential race (even unofficially), GHW Bush's numbers were worse than any modern President except Jimmy Carter (who lost in a landslide), and even worse than Gerald Ford (who also lost).
2) During the entirety of the Sixth Party system (and even back into the later stages of the Fifth), no party has managed to hold the White House for four consecutive terms, and in only one out of the last nine elections in which the President's party has held the White House for eight or more years has that party prevailed.
***********************
The thesis that maybe Ross Perot, in some way that left no statistical evidence, caused Bush to lose in 1992, is akin to those who claim that Nader tanked it for Kerry in 2004, Anderson tanked it for Carter in 1980, Wallace for Humphrey in 1968. It's only so much hand-waving by those who don't actually have any evidence for their claim.
The point the author of the article was making is Perot changed the dynamics of the race. For example:
Tactically, Perot forced Bush into a two-front war at a time where he needed to be hammering away at a badly wounded Clinton campaign. He also elevated issues that were unfavorable for the Republican, most notably the deficit. https://www.aei.org/articles/dont-kn...rot-cost-bush/
And...
Mr. Cook said attacks on the health of the economy by Mr. Perot, who founded Electronic Data Systems Corp. and sold it to General Motors Co. in 1984 for $2.5 billion, carried more credibility with Republican and conservative voters than had they come only from Mr. Clinton.
The empirical evidence most certainly does not all come from the universe in which Perot ran.
1) As I have previously noted, Bush was below 40% approval rating before Perot even began flirting with a run (which happened in late February 1992), which is to say he was fatally vulnerable in the universe in which Perot as a candidate or even merely a prospective one did not yet exist.
Let's compare this to incumbent Presidents in the year of their reelection bid:
[I'm going to skip 2020 because of forum rules - but feel free to look it up yourself]
2012:
Obama was never below 45% approval in the relevant time frame.
2004:
George W. Bush was never below 46% in the relevant time frame.
1996:
Clinton was never below 52% in the relevant time frame.
1992:
George H.W. Bush was at 39% before Perot began making noise about running and never - not before Perot declared his campaign, and not when Perot was out of the race from July thru October (Bush actually had his worst numbers overall during this time) - managed to claw his way any higher than 42%. LOST REELECTION
1984:
Ronald Reagan was never below 52% in the relevant time frame.
1980:
Carter's numbers were between the low 40s and low 30s during the relevant time frame. LOST REELECTION
1976:
Ford's numbers bounced around between 50% (in March) and 45% (in the summer). LOST REELECTION
1972:
Nixon was never below 52% in the relevant time frame.
I'll stop here, because it takes us back to before the beginning of the Sixth Party System as well as into the era when polling was in its infancy and sporadic. Nonetheless, the result is clear - even before Ross Perot entered the Presidential race (even unofficially), GHW Bush's numbers were worse than any modern President except Jimmy Carter (who lost in a landslide), and even worse than Gerald Ford (who also lost).
2) During the entirety of the Sixth Party system (and even back into the later stages of the Fifth), no party has managed to hold the White House for four consecutive terms, and in only one out of the last nine elections in which the President's party has held the White House for eight or more years has that party prevailed.
***********************
The thesis that maybe Ross Perot, in some way that left no statistical evidence, caused Bush to lose in 1992, is akin to those who claim that Nader tanked it for Kerry in 2004, Anderson tanked it for Carter in 1980, Wallace for Humphrey in 1968. It's only so much hand-waving by those who don't actually have any evidence for their claim.
Not at all. What likely cost Gore Fl. in 2000 was confusion with the ballots:
There were confusing ballots marked for third-party candidate Patrick Buchanan in heavily Democratic precincts, suggesting they were cast by voters who had thought they were voting for Gore. There were punch-card ballots where the voters' attempt to make their choice had only succeeded in detaching a portion of the perforated paper ("hanging chads" ) or merely denting – rather than removing – the punch-out ("dimpled chads"). https://www.npr.org/2018/11/12/66681...es-on-haunting
...1992:
George H.W. Bush was at 39% before Perot began making noise about running and never - not before Perot declared his campaign, and not when Perot was out of the race from July thru October (Bush actually had his worst numbers overall during this time) - managed to claw his way any higher than 42%.
But we don't know if his approval numbers would have remained the same had Perot not relentlessly hammered away at him for several months.
Perot didn’t just go on national TV shows, he created some himself, hokey infomercials on campaign issues that today would be considered viral gold in the YouTube era. More people watched his lecture on the economy that aired in early October 1992 than the baseball play-off game that came on next — “proof that voters will sit still for a straightforward discussion of issues,” TIME noted. https://time.com/5622818/ross-perot-dead-legacy/
But we don't know if his approval numbers would have remained the same had Perot not relentlessly hammered away at him for several months.
Perot didn’t just go on national TV shows, he created some himself, hokey infomercials on campaign issues that today would be considered viral gold in the YouTube era. More people watched his lecture on the economy that aired in early October 1992 than the baseball play-off game that came on next — “proof that voters will sit still for a straightforward discussion of issues,” TIME noted. https://time.com/5622818/ross-perot-dead-legacy/
Bush I lacked charisma and was viewed as out of touch with ordinary people. Perot had little effect on Bush, in fact I dare say that if Bush or Clinton had not run Perot may well have done better. Bush I made the mistake of vetoing a popular bill that gave some consumer rights for people who had cable.(i.e. The cable company would be required to reimburse customers after an extended outage and be required to host local channels) Congress overrode this veto. He also refused to say the R word until despite the slowing economy and offered little besides small tax cuts to try to fix it(He was not proactive about the economy at all). That famous photo of him being amazed at a barcode reader was not good for the image of a President in touch with the people. He also vetoed a bill that increased the minimum wage, which had not moved for 8 years! He latter agreed to an increase after negotiation.
Also the economy was not in recovery at the time of election.
There was always just something about Old Man Bush that screamed out, "If people would not pay attention to the glitz and glamor of my opponent, if they would just take a step back and weigh my results, that would show that I have a vision and I don't have to explain my vision. I don't have to stoop to that level." The problem with that is you do have to stoop to that level. You do have to have a vision. Especially when your opponent is skewering you for not having a vision.
The biggest mistake Old Man Bush made was not taking the political capital that came from the Gulf War and reinvesting it into something on the domestic front. Maybe getting a jobs bill passed. Something that would have helped the economy. He got a false sense of security after the war.
The biggest mistake Old Man Bush made was not taking the political capital that came from the Gulf War and reinvesting it into something on the domestic front. Maybe getting a jobs bill passed. Something that would have helped the economy. He got a false sense of security after the war.
The reason some people needed jobs, the reason there was a mild recession, is because the consequences of the S&L bailout put a serious stress on financial sector. What Bush 41 could have done, had he not been a nice guy, would have been to point to the Democrats who pushed through the laws that led to the S&L mess.
Such as Fernand Joseph St Germain of Rhode Island, chairman of the House Banking Committee (though it had a different and longer name back then). He pushed through the S&L deregulation bill and by the late 1980s about 1/3 of the 3234 S&L's in the US had failed. The FSLIC created the Resolution Trust Corporation to clean up the mess, and in the end it cost the taxpayers $132 billion (back when that was a lot of money). While St Germain avoided prosecution for bribery, Speaker of the House Jim Wright resigned after the Ethics Committee voted a long list of illegalities. Also, four of the senators from the Keating Five were Democrats -- the fifth was John McCain. Keating's S&L's failure cost the taxpayers $3 billion.
I don't know why George H.W. Bush didn't make a bigger deal out of the corruption in the Democrat Party. Maybe he was unaware of the corrupt activities by Bill and Hillary Clinton, or he thought he was above "mudslinging" even if the accusations were 100% true.
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.
