No Perot

[© Tweed the Younger]

Clinton

[Kghadial]

I said in some other thread worst case scenario for Clinton in '92 without Perot is around 276 EVs.

[zachman]

Clinton was a young persons candidate, so most of Perot's support would probably filter to Clinton.

[muon2]

Bush 41 had far too many negatives to expect to win in '92. He really only had the Gulf War going for him. There was a insightful analysis from Gergen and Shields back in the early part of the campaign. It was noted that with few partisan enemies he was able to achieve a 91% approval in 1991 after the war. He also had few partisan friends, and as they noted that, unlike Reagan, there was no group of folks in some bar saying that "Bush is my guy". There was a complete lack of a base to hold him up.

[© Tweed the Younger]

I voted for Perot in 1992, but in a two-man race, Clinton would have taken my vote.

[opebo]

I liked Bush, and Clinton was one of the more pathetic figures to ever make it to the whitehouse, but Bush senior got what moderate non-partisan Republicans deserve.

[angus]

how many republicans voted for bill in 92?  (my hand up; i'll concede to pathetic figure)

[opebo]

how many republicans voted for bill in 92?  (my hand up; i'll concede to pathetic figure)

Not me, I was very fond of Bush Sr.  That election was a depressing one, with that horrible Perot, and then the too-good-to-last Reagan Bush years ending with that slug Clinton creeping into the white house.   I was young enough to be rather upset about the whole thing.

[dazzleman]

I think Clinton would still have won.  All the air had just gone out of the Bush campaign, and it's hard to imagine him winning under any circumstances.

I really don't think he wanted to win.  He had run out of ideas (not sure he had any to begin with) and Clinton had a lot of ideas and was looking toward the future.

That's what wins elections.  Many of Clinton's ideas were bad ones, but bad ideas win out over no ideas.

[HockeyDude]

Clinton would've still won, and its good he did.  

[angus]

Clinton would've still won, and its good he did.  

think that the technological advances which came to fruition in the early 90s, combined with new capitalist markets to the east, which brought out the staggering budget surplus and general prosperity of the late 90s would NOT have occurred if Bush had been reelected?  pshaw!

Anyway, I do not think Perot "stole" that election any more than I think Nader "stole" the most recent one.  

[??????????]

If Clinton had never been elected, Al Gore would have never been around to invent the internet. lol

[Wrecking Ball and Chain]

wrong. What Gore meant by that comment is he was one of the senators most reponsbile for funding a government network called Arpanet, which later evolved into the internet. It happened while he was a senator. That comment has been blown out of context so many times it's beyond ridiculous.

[PBrunsel]

George Bush in one of the closest elections in history.