Did Clinton win in '92 becuase of Perot or on his own merits?

[Hippo_Tron]

Personally I think that Clinton ripped Poppy a new one but others disagree. Discuss

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. You Will Bring The Revisionist Out Of The Woodwork...

Perot certainly changed the dynamic of the race but Clinton had a constant post convention lead against Poppa Bush with and without Perot in the race....

[theorist]

2. I agree.

Perot's presence in many states where Poppy was running hard made the electoral college much easier for William Jefferson to win. Perot really wanted to make Bush41 squirm (and probably cry), so he did. :)

[Yupster]

12. I agree with both of you

I look and look at the 92 votes and I don't see a win for Bush if Perot is not in the race.

It would have been closer for sure.

There is no state that Clinton lost that I think he would have won were Perot not in the race.

There are several states that Clinton won that I think he wouldn't have won had Perot not been in the race.

There's no way those states switching would get Bush to 270 electoral votes.

Some states I think Perot may have switched include Georgia, Colorado, Montana, and Ohio.

[Mend]

3. Clinton won and won again

because he knew how to run a presidential campaign. Nuff said.

[TomClash]

13. Clinton also was lucky the economy was bad

[Hippo_Tron]

23. Luck had nothing to do with it, Raygunomics had come to a crash

Republican economic policies never create stability, they create a few years of "growth" and it all collapses. The collapse of Raygunomics was inevitable, but to help your point it is lucky that it happened in '90-'92 and not '93. Remember though, chimpy also had a poor economy that he had to work with and he won by framing the debate about terra, natural security, and "family values". Clinton framed the debate, Kerry didn't. Bush I lost re-election, Bush II won re-election.

[TomClash]

37. Kerry didn't have a debate to frame

unless he came out against the War, which would have lost anyway. If Kerry had the Fall '92 economy, he would have won going away.

[Hippo_Tron]

41. Not necesarilly, they could've used the guns/god/gays approach

As well as the "Taxachusetts liburl" thing.

[Warpy]

4. Clinton won because of economic populism

"It's the economy, stupid!" was his campaign slogan. He went against the "wisdom" of the DLC and attacked the GOP on their stupid economic policies. He won.

Without Perot, he'd likelier have had a narrower win. However, he still would have won. Poppy was a bungler who had lied about taxes, and people had had quite enough of him.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

5. Quayle was an idiot and part of the zealots...

I liked Clinton and was completely appalled by the VP Dan Quayle attacking TV characters' "morals" (Murphy Brown, for those that don't remember the 80's). Little did I realize that he was just the beginning of the 'zealot wave' of the new Rapturist Right Republican party takeover. Now they're after SpongeBob.

As Carville asked sarcastically to some right-winger, 'What part of peace and prosperity didn't you like under Clinton?'

[Stinky The Clown]

27. Yanno ..... what is it with Poppy and his choice of surrounding himself

with stupid younger men?

I'm just sayin' ......... :shrug:

[blm]

6. Perot voters polled said more would have gone to Clinton than Bush.

The Repubs like to claim the only reason Clinton won was because of Perot taking votes from Bush, but, the actual poll data showed that Perot took more votes from Clinton.

[Pushed To The Left]

11. According to ontheissues.org

Ross Perot is a liberal populist. http://www.issues2002.org/Ross_Perot.htm

[Yupster]

15. I've heard this asserted, but never have saw a poll

showing it. I've seen articles saying there are such polls but I don't know if they're all just quoting each other.

However, the 1996 CNN exit polls asked each voter who they voted for in 1992.

Of the voters who said they voted for Perot in 1992, they said they voted the following way in 1996.

Dole 44 %
Perot 33 %
Clinton 22 %

I have trouble believing that all these voters were stuck choosing between Clinton and Perot, and then eventually chose Perot.

Then four years later after Clinton had a wildly successful first term they switched to Dole.

That's hard for me to believe.

Still, I don't think there's an iota of doubt that Clinton wins, with or without Perot, just a bit closer.

[blm]

18. I clearly remember the polls at the time. You aren't factoring in the

HEAVY anti-Clinton bias in the media by 1994. The NRA really went after Clinton and Dems back then and ramped up the pressure in 96.

[bryant69]

7. I think it's hard to tell.

I mean to say that Perot played no role in the final election tally is probably BS, but to focus on Perot as a factor is often a tactic of those who want to say that America is really a conservative country, and so wouldn't really have given us Clinton.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[tritsofme]

8. Exit polls said that Perot voters split between Bush and Clinton evenly

if given no other choice, the idea that Bush would have won without Perot is a myth.

Poppy was not only a victim of circumstance, catching the wrong end of the business cycle, he ran right into one of the most charismatic politicians of the 20th century.

However on the flip side, if Poppy won in 1992, Gingrich's takeover never would have happened in 1994, and Dubya probably never would have happened either.

[dsc]

9. Ultimately it is an impossible question to answer

but Perot helped Clinton immensely. First, I can't think of any southern state, save Arkansas and Tennessee what Clinton would have carried without Perot. He won 4 each in 92 and 96. Second, Perot's presence in the race prevented the type of campaign that W ran this time which was pretty much Kerry sucks. Had there been a third place to deposit votes that campaign wouldn't have worked and thus wouldn't have been run. Bush would have had to find something positive to run on and he had nothing. I honestly think Clinton would have either won a very narrow victory without Perot or been Gored (narrow pop vote win with an electoral loss)

[Hippo_Tron]

17. Statistics show that he would've won Louisiana as well...

And Georgia is questionable, as is Kentucky if you count that as a southern state. Louisiana, Kentucky, and Arkansas, West Virginia, and Missouri would've put him over the top even if he had lost Georgia, Kentucky, Ohio, Colorado and even New Jersey (which some argue he would've). It wouldn't have been a landslide but he would've still won.

[dsc]

20. Virtually no black people voted for Perot

which in the south means he had very few democratic voters. Yes the people who voted for Perot were about evenly divided nationwide. But in the south most of them had to have been potential Bush voters.

[Hippo_Tron]

21. Clinton won pluralities in those states...

Meaning that he would've had to have recieved fewer Perot voters than Bush would've had to, to win. Also factor that I think Perot voters were split evenly three ways Bush, Clinton, Wouldn't have voted. That wouldn't have voted category was probably magnified by Bush going back on his promise not to raise taxes. My point is that Clinton had southern appeal and I can easily see him winning in a traditionally democratic southern state like Louisiana, and MAYBE Georgia. I'm not suggesting that he had the ability to win in state where the bigots are in control like Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina but it's not hard to believe that he won Louisiana and Georgia. Also remember regarding Georgia, that Zell Miller, Georgia's Governor at the time, worked his ass off for Clinton. What I gather from this is that most of these Zell Miller "Democrats" who turned out in huge numbers for * this time, probably voted for Clinton in '92.

[saracat]

10. Clinton won because he was Clinton.

Perot helped, a bit. And the repugs hammered Hillary so hard there was a backlash. Poppy was too defensive and got nasty. They went overboard and I think that had a lot to do with Clinton's win. That being said, Clinton knew how to play this every step of the way. He used the perot factor and he used the backlash. I have really lost respect for Clinton with his cushying up to Bush, but I cannot deny that he is probably one of the best campaigners in poltical history.

[Mend]

14. Perot campaigned like a moderate republican

He said that abortion was no business of government and wouldn't suck up to the fundies. I think he must have gotten a lot of libertarian and moderate republican votes.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

16. Perot almost got my vote, but Clinton was the real candidate...

I couldn't bring myself to vote for Perot knowing he wouldn't really win and ultimately keep Bush/Quayle in office. It was Quayle that I really detested with his holier-than-thou Murphy Brown speech...little did I know then that he was only the tip of the Rapturist Right iceberg. Arggghhh!!:mad:

[WI_DEM]

19. both

Clinton was a masterful politician, but without a doubt he also profited by having Perot in the race. Clinton got only 43% of the vote which was only 2-points higher than Mondale got in '84, and 3-points lower than Dukakis got in '88. I think the American people wanted a change in '92, but it would have been much closer without Ross Perot.

[hollowdweller]

38. I agree. Both. Perot did a great service to this country though by using

his $$ to raise public awareness on the deficit. I wish we had somebody like that now. 30 min infomercials with graphs. Also since he was somewhat eccentric the press actually let more of his message get out than they do when there's 2 candidates.

[Dob Bole]

40. I think that Perot HURT Clinton because of NAFTA...

Perot was the only candidate opposing it, which made unions pissed at Clinton.

[journalist3072]

22. It Was The Economy

People really voted their pocketbook in '92. Clinton was basically hired to fix the economy and fix many domestic issues that were broken.

Poppy Bush was viewed as someone who knew how to do foreign policy, but really lacked the knowledge or will to handle things domestically.

So in short, I think he won on his own, not b/c of Perot. Perot may have siphoned votes away from Poppy, but not enough to tip the election back in his favor, had they voted for him.

[Hippo_Tron]

24. True, but the economy sucked this time around as well

To your credit, Clinton had something to work with. Clinton effectively USED that however. Kerry didn't effectively use the poor economy and instead was forced to defend himself on terra and "family values".

[journalist3072]

30. Totally agree with you

I think Kerry tried to talk economy, but Bush had people scared so bad they were peeing in their pants, fearful of another terrorist attack.

Fear does amazing things to people.

And I think Karl Rove WANTED to wage a cultural war during the campaign. I have heard reports that after the 2000 election, Rove studied why Bush lost the popular vote, and he determined that Bush lost the pop vote in 2000 b/c the so called 'religious right' stayed home.

His job this time was to try to figure out how to get them to show up.

[double_helix]

25. Clinton won due to cultural populism

much more than economic populism, IMO. Clinton's policies were not populist or liberal, but moderately conservative.

Clinton was going to win that election regardless of Perot or anyone else; he was the right person for that moment in history.

It was a time when many felt alienated/disillusioned: Bush 41 was a good moderate Republican but he was a lot like Kerry personality wise - patrician and didn't connect well with people. Many felt uncertain about not only the economy, but about the 90's itself - about the end of the cold war, new technology and the dawn of the new millenium.

Bill Clinton was the charismatic boy from Hope who not only spoke to the disaffected, but was one of them. He was also very qualified, smart and moderate enough to appeal to the right and center (like any Democrat who ever stands a chance of winning must).

[Hippo_Tron]

33. Disagree, Clinton RAN on an economic populist agenda

His agenda was ambitious and had the praise of the left wing of the party. Once he got into office, though, his agenda took a sharp turn to the center. Not to say that Clinton didn't accomplish anything, but the agenda that he campaigned on in 1992 was definately economically populist.

[double_helix]

35. I remember populist rhetoric, but not much populism in the way of

policy proposals. IIRC, his policy proposals were centrist/center right: he talked about cutting waste and taxes, that the era of big government was over, and called for welfare reform.

BTW, as an independent, I voted for Clinton because he was more conservative than the typical Democrat.

[Hippo_Tron]

36. That was all AFTER he was elected

Welfare reform, "The era of big government is over", etc. all happened around 1995-1996.

[seabeyond]

26. perot took votes from repugs n/t

[Grey Ranks]

28. If I am not mistaken...

After the Democratic Convention Clinton went from third to first in the polls. That would seem to suggest Clintons success was due to Clinton, not Perot.

Either way I don’t think it would be fair to “blame” Perot. That is what people did with Nader in 2000. You can’t blame s third party candiate for your failing to demostrate your effectivness as a leader and the merit of your policies.

[Yupster]

31. Perot pulled out of the race

right in the middle of the Democratic convention.

That was a killer for Bush. Just at the time there was three nights of tv shouting how great a guy Clinton was, Perot voters were released. That's when Clinton went from third to first in the polls.

I don't have any doubt that Perot helped Clinton, but I also have no doubt that Clinton would have won a two man race too.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

29. Clinton won on his own. I've always rejected the Perot helped Clinton win

argument. Bush I only got 37% of the vote. How do these experts know that Perot's votes would have gone to Bush?

[Yupster]

32. One way was to ask them who they voted for in 1996

The fact that twice as many of 92 Perot voters voted for Dole than Clinton tells me they probably would have voted for Bush over Clinton too if there was not a Perot option.

[Hippo_Tron]

34. Disagree, Bush the elder pissed a lot of Republicans off

Especially with the "read my lips no new taxes". And by the time the '96 elections rolled around I think that arguably many of the Perot voters had been won over by Gingrich and co. Also, there was like a 39% turnout in 1996. I'd bet that many Perot voters just stayed home.

[noonwitch]

39. Perot played a part in it, but Bush lost that election

I think Bush lost more than Clinton won, because Clinton was not really that well known coming into 1992, and had some really bad press early on in the primaries. He did know how to win the debates, he also knew how to work the crowds.

Bush blew it, however, by looking at his watch during the debates and not seeming to want to continue as president. 12 years running things is a long time.