1992 if Perot Never Dropped Out
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 09:42:33 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  1992 if Perot Never Dropped Out
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: 1992 if Perot Never Dropped Out  (Read 3031 times)
Free Bird
TheHawk
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,918
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.84, S: -5.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: July 04, 2015, 04:38:33 AM »

I'd say the political landscape would be vastly different
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: July 04, 2015, 04:41:09 AM »

Perot's support was in the process of tanking when he dropped out.  I'm not sure that the final result would have been that different.
Logged
Free Bird
TheHawk
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,918
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.84, S: -5.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: July 04, 2015, 04:42:52 AM »

Whether he won or not, he would have won SOME states, and as such the dramatic realignment that 92 turned out to be would have been offset
Logged
136or142
Adam T
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,434
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: July 04, 2015, 05:48:00 AM »

...He might actually have checked under the hood of the car.
Logged
Bojack Horseman
Wolverine22
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,368
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: July 04, 2015, 08:06:14 AM »

I don't think it would have been that different. Perot's candidacy arguably flipped four states (NH, ME, MT, NV, a total of 15 electoral votes) but other than that, it wouldn't have been different.
Logged
Sumner 1868
tara gilesbie
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,053
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: July 04, 2015, 07:02:09 PM »

Whether he won or not, he would have won SOME states, and as such the dramatic realignment that 92 turned out to be would have been offset

I think he still would have won not a single state. He simply had no chance under Clinton's rising star.
Logged
Podgy the Bear
mollybecky
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,968


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: July 05, 2015, 02:10:32 PM »

He was dropping in the polls before his July withdrawal (and Clinton had a big lead by then).  Perot would have probably made further inroads into more libertarian states (such as AK, ID,ME, MT, NV) but that's about it. 
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: July 05, 2015, 07:07:26 PM »

well, Clinton got 53.41% of the two-party vote.  that's an Obama 2008 victory.  you can argue from there.  obviously states like Montana would flip to Bush.  but the takeaway story from 1992 was how poorly Bush (R) did: 37.5% as an incumbent. 

counterfactuals are silly, but the conclusion has to be that Bush very likely still would have lost.  even to a Massachusetts scarecrow like Tsongas.
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: July 05, 2015, 07:09:09 PM »

oh, if he never dropped out.  it would have been remarkable on Perot's part to draw Clinton below 270 EVs.  Perot may have won a handful of states.  his campaign was amazingly incompetent and blew a unique opportunity.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: July 05, 2015, 09:16:37 PM »

Bush loses regardless of who the Democratic nominee is or whether Perot runs. Those 2 myths (Clinton won only because of Perot and Clinton was the only Democrat who could win) are retarded.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,522
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: July 06, 2015, 07:07:05 PM »

Clinton almost certainly still finishes first, but it could be a much closer fight for 2nd place.  Perot probably does well enough to win several states and send election to congress, which would presumably elect Clinton and Gore without much controversy given how large the D majorities were at the time.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: July 07, 2015, 12:35:05 AM »

Does Bush still try to sabotage the wedding of Perot's daughter in this counterfactual?  Tongue
Logged
Mr.Phips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,543


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: July 07, 2015, 12:50:24 PM »

Bush very well may have finished third in this case.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,677


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: July 07, 2015, 02:29:07 PM »

I think Perot might have improved from 19% to 22-24%...a mostly nominal improvement. It's possible that he might have taken Maine, maybe Alaska on a good night. Probably would've swung Florida from Bush to Clinton.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: July 07, 2015, 07:22:00 PM »

Might have actually hurt him, as there would've been more time for the media and his opponents to dig up dirt on him. With his late reentry and with Bush and Clinton effectively ignoring him and focusing on each other, he had the advantage of being a blank slate and largely a protest vote.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,522
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: July 07, 2015, 09:44:38 PM »

well, Clinton got 53.41% of the two-party vote.  that's an Obama 2008 victory.  you can argue from there.  obviously states like Montana would flip to Bush.  but the takeaway story from 1992 was how poorly Bush (R) did: 37.5% as an incumbent. 

counterfactuals are silly, but the conclusion has to be that Bush very likely still would have lost.  even to a Massachusetts scarecrow like Tsongas.

Actually, in a no-Perot world, I think Bush is narrowly favored.  Don't underestimate Perot's impact as a credible non-partisan voice hitting Bush over the head on the deficit with independent voters.  And remember that 1996 and 2004 are basically automatic incumbent party wins.  Without Perot in 92 or 96, it's very possible that the Republicans don't lose a presidential election again until 2008.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: July 07, 2015, 10:06:50 PM »

well, Clinton got 53.41% of the two-party vote.  that's an Obama 2008 victory.  you can argue from there.  obviously states like Montana would flip to Bush.  but the takeaway story from 1992 was how poorly Bush (R) did: 37.5% as an incumbent. 

counterfactuals are silly, but the conclusion has to be that Bush very likely still would have lost.  even to a Massachusetts scarecrow like Tsongas.

Actually, in a no-Perot world, I think Bush is narrowly favored.  Don't underestimate Perot's impact as a credible non-partisan voice hitting Bush over the head on the deficit with independent voters.  And remember that 1996 and 2004 are basically automatic incumbent party wins.  Without Perot in 92 or 96, it's very possible that the Republicans don't lose a presidential election again until 2008.

Bush's job approval rating was pretty miserable throughout 1992.  People were pretty upset about the economy.  You really think that would have been different without Perot talking about the deficit and trade?
Logged
sg0508
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,053
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: July 08, 2015, 07:29:39 AM »

Clinton still wins.  I believe the exit polls (not always right) showed him/Bush nearly splitting the Perot vote had he not been in. Also, some voters wouldn't have voted.  A few states likely would have switched back to Bush, but not enough.
Logged
Mr.Phips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,543


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: July 08, 2015, 01:11:50 PM »

well, Clinton got 53.41% of the two-party vote.  that's an Obama 2008 victory.  you can argue from there.  obviously states like Montana would flip to Bush.  but the takeaway story from 1992 was how poorly Bush (R) did: 37.5% as an incumbent. 

counterfactuals are silly, but the conclusion has to be that Bush very likely still would have lost.  even to a Massachusetts scarecrow like Tsongas.

Actually, in a no-Perot world, I think Bush is narrowly favored.  Don't underestimate Perot's impact as a credible non-partisan voice hitting Bush over the head on the deficit with independent voters.  And remember that 1996 and 2004 are basically automatic incumbent party wins.  Without Perot in 92 or 96, it's very possible that the Republicans don't lose a presidential election again until 2008.

Bush's job approval rating was pretty miserable throughout 1992.  People were pretty upset about the economy.  You really think that would have been different without Perot talking about the deficit and trade?


Bush's approval rating remained below 40% from March of 1992 through the election.  This isn't like 1996 or 2004 when the incumbent President's were hovering around 50% or higher.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: July 08, 2015, 06:05:52 PM »

well, Clinton got 53.41% of the two-party vote.  that's an Obama 2008 victory.  you can argue from there.  obviously states like Montana would flip to Bush.  but the takeaway story from 1992 was how poorly Bush (R) did: 37.5% as an incumbent. 

counterfactuals are silly, but the conclusion has to be that Bush very likely still would have lost.  even to a Massachusetts scarecrow like Tsongas.

Actually, in a no-Perot world, I think Bush is narrowly favored.  Don't underestimate Perot's impact as a credible non-partisan voice hitting Bush over the head on the deficit with independent voters.  And remember that 1996 and 2004 are basically automatic incumbent party wins.  Without Perot in 92 or 96, it's very possible that the Republicans don't lose a presidential election again until 2008.

Bush's job approval rating was pretty miserable throughout 1992.  People were pretty upset about the economy.  You really think that would have been different without Perot talking about the deficit and trade?


Bush's approval rating remained below 40% from March of 1992 through the election.  This isn't like 1996 or 2004 when the incumbent President's were hovering around 50% or higher.

That's exactly my point.
Logged
DS0816
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,107
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: July 09, 2015, 02:01:24 PM »

Bush loses regardless of who the Democratic nominee is or whether Perot runs. Those 2 myths (Clinton won only because of Perot and Clinton was the only Democrat who could win) are retarded.

^ WINNER! ^
Logged
Bull Moose Base
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,488


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: July 10, 2015, 11:07:13 PM »

https://twitter.com/SteveKornacki

He obliterates the delusion that Perot affected the Bush-Clinton race.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.048 seconds with 12 queries.