Myths of 1992

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

A: Clinton only won because Perot cost Bush the election.

B: The Democrats only won because of Clinton.


For most of 1992, George HW Bush had a disapproval rating of over 50% and an approval rating of under 40%. Lee Atwater, who had helped run Bush's very negative 1988 campaign, was dead. So both are myths.

[IceSpear]

Yes/Yes

The first one really isn't debatable. Most polls showed Perot's voters either sitting it out or splitting fairly evenly between Bush and Clinton. Even if they did break to Bush, it would've had to have been by an overwhelming margin to give him the win.

The second is more ambiguous, but any decent Democratic candidate would've beaten Bush. I'm sure there were some Dems who could've managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, but Clinton was hardly the ONLY one who could've won.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I was hoping for more interesting options. The myths I remember hearing in '92 were that the EU would be the Beast from the Book of Revelations and that piss and sweat are made of the same thing.

[Mechaman]

Yes/Yes on both.

People seem to forget things like:

a) a failing economy
b) "voter fatigue"
c) Bush pandering to the far right
d) Bush coming off as a bit aloof about point a.
e) the infamous "Culture Wars" Speech (though that could go along with point c)
f) And who can forget "NO NEW TAXES" or "It's the Economy, Stupid"?

And that's just off the top of my head.

[Maxwell]

Meant to vote Yes/No, accidentally voted No/Yes.

Perot split evenly, so obviously.

But let's think about the Democratic field for a second - Paul Tsgonas was, if a nice guy, completely uninspiring. Maybe he could've won, but i doubt it. Jerry Brown ran too hard a primary campaign to get anyone in the center to vote for him, which is a shame. He may have pulled more Perot voters since his fair trade position was the same. That would've been interesting. Bob Kerrey? Meh, probably not. Tom Harkin? Meh, probably not. I think Clinton was clearly the best in the field in a general election field, and the only one who could win a convincing victory the way he did.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Meant to vote Yes/No, accidentally voted No/Yes.

Perot split evenly, so obviously.

But let's think about the Democratic field for a second - Paul Tsgonas was, if a nice guy, completely uninspiring. Maybe he could've won, but i doubt it. Jerry Brown ran too hard a primary campaign to get anyone in the center to vote for him, which is a shame. He may have pulled more Perot voters since his fair trade position was the same. That would've been interesting. Bob Kerrey? Meh, probably not. Tom Harkin? Meh, probably not. I think Clinton was clearly the best in the field in a general election field, and the only one who could win a convincing victory the way he did.

This

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The first one really isn't debatable. Most polls showed Perot's voters either sitting it out or splitting fairly evenly between Bush and Clinton. Even if they did break to Bush, it would've had to have been by an overwhelming margin to give him the win.

What that misses is that with third party candidates, the reasons for voting third party candidates are not uniform across the States and thus the split of who they would vote for in the absence of that candidate is also not uniform.  Looking at the individual States, I think it is fairly obvious that had Perot been magically stripped off the ballot everywhere on the 1st of November, Bush would have done better in the Electoral College than he did.  By itself, I agree that wouldn't have given Bush a chance of winning, but had he been facing fire from only one opponent instead of two during the whole campaign, he would have done better.  How much better, we'll never know.  So I can't really answer the first question, tho if forced to answer I'd go with Yes.

The answer to the second is Yes, tho I do agree with those who think the election would have been closer without Clinton as the candidate.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I think this is about as well as Bush could do sans Perot:

325-213

[Dr. Cynic]

A is most certainly a myth. Perot's platform was very attractive to disaffected Democrats. In fact, I'd argue that Perot's platform is more palatable now to Democrats than Republicans. He stole from both.

The second one is probably a myth as well, though I don't know if Jerry Brown could've won. Paul Tsongas, possibly. Bob Kerrey, maybe. Tom Harkin, less likely.

[DemPGH]

Both are myths.

Here in PA in 1991, I'd point to Wofford vs. Thornburgh as a microcosm of what was coming in 1992. In 1992 there was no Soviet Union to demonize and we were really feeling the modern era of economic inequality come to full fruition as a result of Reagan and Bush. It was going to be a Democratic year. And some of Clinton's ads were killer. His mage was that of a loose goose, but he proved a heavyweight in the debates and in advertising.  

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

1. Perot hurt both, but probably did swing a few states to Clinton, but I can't think of one where he swung it to Bush. I say Perot probably had an impact in MT, CO, NH and maybe NV...hmmm, GA?... perhaps Perot stopped Clinton in AZ?

2. I don't think electorally, they would have been ANY-WHERE near as successful, especially in the South with a Tsongas or Brown, actually I'm sure of it. I do think Bush was kind of doomed, but Clinton was much better placed to capitalise on tat weakness.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Perot hurt Clinton, not Bush. Bush was polling anywhere from 30-39% before Perot re-entered, while Clinton was at a majority in many polls. At the time, the Bush campaign were ecstastic he was back because they felt that it might help them pull even with Clinton. Just look at the results in states like WI & IA and this is all kind of obvious anyway.

[Person Man]

Under none of the above proposed circumstances would Bush win.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

They're both myths.  Clinton won largely because he won over the moderates (and they've been voting for Democrats ever since.)  A is a myth because exit polls showed Perot taking votes about equally from Bush and Clinton.  B is a myth because Bush's job approval was low enough that just about any decent Democrat could have beaten him.

Lee Atwater, who had helped run Bush's very negative 1988 campaign, was dead.

This is another myth.  Bush's 1988 campaign was no more negative than the Dukakis campaign, and Bush's attacks were far from the only reason he won.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Tough to say, but I think it would have been closer had Perot sat out. Bush Sr. may have been a weakened incumbent, but he was still an incumbent. And his campaign would perhaps have been better able to drive up turnout among the Republican base without Perot taking votes from him (Yes, he took votes from Clinton too, particularly in the North, IIRC-but in the South, which hadn't become quite as reliably Republican as it is now, he took more votes from Bush.

Also, I think Clinton was able to capitalize on some of the extra energy and enthusiasm that Perot brought to the race in a way that Bush was not-and frankly, I can't see many other Democratic candidates being as successful as Clinton).

I voted Yes/No, but meh.