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.
Does anyone remember in the aftermath of the first Gulf War in 1991 when nobody wanted to run against Old Man Bush because they thought he was invincible. A year and a half later, the lowly Governor of Arkansas beats him comfortably. A confluence of events came together against Bush. First the economy. Even though the economy was in full recovery in the fall of 1992, too many people already labeled Bush as a failed president. Lee Atwater, who was the mastermind behind Bush's 1988 win and would have been running the 1992 campaign died of cancer. The campaign wound up being run by Mary Matalin, who while a nice lady, was in over her head. Bush really waited a long time to shift to reelection mode. And the attacks that worked so well against Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis did not work against Clinton. And the media was very unfair to Bush. Like when they made that big spectacle about how he was unfamiliar with the scanner at the checkout counter when he was at the supermarket. The fact is any president loses touch with normal Americans. It also seemed at times like Bush really didn't want it. He seemed like his heart wasn't really in it at times, like when he was caught looking at his watch during the debate. Bill Clinton once said in an interview years later, "George Bush could have beaten me. The problem is he spent the whole campaign talking about what he had done in the past, not what he would do in a second term." I think that the mistake Bush made was not reinvesting the political capital that came from the war into a domestic agenda, like a jobs bill. I believe that had he done that and run a better campaign, similar to the one his son ran in 2004, he could have won. Any opinions?
Does anyone remember in the aftermath of the first Gulf War in 1991 when nobody wanted to run against Old Man Bush because they thought he was invincible. A year and a half later, the lowly Governor of Arkansas beats him comfortably. A confluence of events came together against Bush. First the economy. Even though the economy was in full recovery in the fall of 1992, too many people already labeled Bush as a failed president. Lee Atwater, who was the mastermind behind Bush's 1988 win and would have been running the 1992 campaign died of cancer. The campaign wound up being run by Mary Matalin, who while a nice lady, was in over her head. Bush really waited a long time to shift to reelection mode. And the attacks that worked so well against Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis did not work against Clinton. And the media was very unfair to Bush. Like when they made that big spectacle about how he was unfamiliar with the scanner at the checkout counter when he was at the supermarket. The fact is any president loses touch with normal Americans. It also seemed at times like Bush really didn't want it. He seemed like his heart wasn't really in it at times, like when he was caught looking at his watch during the debate. Bill Clinton once said in an interview years later, "George Bush could have beaten me. The problem is he spent the whole campaign talking about what he had done in the past, not what he would do in a second term." I think that the mistake Bush made was not reinvesting the political capital that came from the war into a domestic agenda, like a jobs bill. I believe that had he done that and run a better campaign, similar to the one his son ran in 2004, he could have won. Any opinions?
Maybe he could have won, but its a big maybe.
There were essentially four problems with his reelection in 1992.
1. The economy had weakened. Unemployment was up.
2. Republicans had held the presidency for three consecutive terms. The American people do not like to give lock to any political party for more than two presidential terms. It only happens in rare instances. Bush probably would have been beaten by Dukakis in 1988, except for the fact that Dukakis was a very poor candidate who ran a very bad campaign. By 1992, people were restless. Sometimes, you just sense people want something new. It can be terribly unfair to the candidate in office, but it happens. The best approach for the incumbent is to offer something new to the electorate and Bush could not do that.
3. The third party candidacy of H. Ross Perot drew more votes from republicans than it did from democrats. I won't go so far as to say this candidacy split the republican party. However, it hurt Bush more than Clinton.
4. Bush was a good administrator, but lacked much in the way of personal charisma. Clinton's style was more appealing.
Ultimately, Clinton won with a margin of about 5% over Bush. That's a sizeable vote tally to overcome. I'm not sure Bush could have beat him under any circumstances.
There were essentially four problems with his reelection in 1992.
1. The economy had weakened. Unemployment was up.
2. Republicans had held the presidency for three consecutive terms. The American people do not like to give lock to any political party for more than two presidential terms. It only happens in rare instances. Bush probably would have been beaten by Dukakis in 1988, except for the fact that Dukakis was a very poor candidate who ran a very bad campaign. By 1992, people were restless. Sometimes, you just sense people want something new. It can be terribly unfair to the candidate in office, but it happens. The best approach for the incumbent is to offer something new to the electorate and Bush could not do that.
3. The third party candidacy of H. Ross Perot drew more votes from republicans than it did from democrats. I won't go so far as to say this candidacy split the republican party. However, it hurt Bush more than Clinton.
4. Bush was a good administrator, but lacked much in the way of personal charisma. Clinton's style was more appealing.
Ultimately, Clinton won with a margin of about 5% over Bush. That's a sizeable vote tally to overcome. I'm not sure Bush could have beat him under any circumstances.
Ross Perot won 18% of the popular vote. Is it a stretch to say 2/3 of that is would be Bush voters?
Ross Perot won 18% of the popular vote. Is it a stretch to say 2/3 of that is would be Bush voters?
Yes.
In late spring and early summer of 1992 it was a three-way race, but Clinton was lagging towards the end of the three candidates. When Perot dropped out of the race in July, leaving just Clinton and Bush, the Democrat opened up a large lead over the incumbent President. When Perot reentered the race in October, Clinton's lead began to shrink, with Perot picking up most of those scraps.
Similarly, where did Perot's support go in 1996, when it dropped to 8% (from 19% in 1992)? Mostly to the Democratic candidate, not the Republican.
Further, Ross Perot was pro-choice, staunchly pro-gun control, and adamant in his opposition to free trade. He supported raising taxes on the higher brackets, as well as raising the gasoline tax. Not exactly a bunch of right-wing positions, those.
I find it somewhat amazing that a discussion regarding the election of George HW Bush hasn't yet mentioned his broken "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge. IMO, that may have demotivated some Republican voters.
Reagan supporters came out and voted for Bush in 1988 because Reagan threw his full weight behind Bush - many consider Bush's election in 1988 to be simply Reagan's third election win. But George HW Bush wasn't part of the Reagan crowd, instead, Bush represented the old guard of the GOP, not the Goldwater/Reagan branch. IMO, Reaganites held Bush at arms length, never warming to Bush as they had to Reagan. And, as MarkG points out, Bush wasn't a "people person" and, while highly capable of compassion for his fellow man, came across as detached and distant.
Finally, toss in the fact that Bush had negotiated the NAFTA agreement, which Ross Perot used to beat up Bush during the debates - the "giant sucking sound" of American jobs headed for Mexico. In 1992, who would have imagined that the giant sucking sound would wind up coming from China? FWIW, Bill Clinton was also in favor of NAFTA, but it didn't seem to cost him much political support.
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.
My gut feeling has always been that H. Ross Perot siphoned off a lot of "economy, stupid" votes from Bush 41.
But Clinton playing the saxophone and talking about his underpants on MTV can't be ignored.
The 1992 two-quarter recession ended in the 3rd quarter but it was too late for that news to make a difference on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.
In the end it was Clinton 43, Bush 37, Perot 19. I have never looked at close state races to determine if Bush could have won key electoral votes without Perot in the race.
*President Bush's approval rating was 46% in January and falling. Note that no incumbent President has ever won with such an approval rating. George W. Bush won another term in 2004 with the final Gallup poll before the election putting him at 48%; that's the lowest ever for a successfully reelection President. But back to 1992, Bush's approval rating was got worse and worse. After briefly slipping into the 30s in February, he clawed his way back into the low 40s but June he was down into the 30s again. By August his approval rating was at 29%. He got a convention boost up to 40% - still way too low for a serious contender - but then was back into the low 30s until after the election, when he got the usual nostalgic farewell recovery in approval.
It really makes no sense to think that an incumbent President with an approval rating in the 30s was cruising to reelection but for a supposed spoiler candidacy.
*Bush's first term was unusual enough in that it marked a third consecutive victory for the GOP. The postwar norm is two terms for a party, then flipping to the other party. There have been a couple of exceptions where control ended after one term (1976, 2020) but 1988 is the only time that a party in the White House for at least eight years has held onto it since Truman managed to do so in 1948. Otherwise, it flipped where the incumbent party had been in control for at least eight years in 1952, 1960, 1968, 1976, 1992, 2000, 2008, and 2016.
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.
