Who did Ross Perot take more votes from in 1992?

[Col. Roosevelt]

Who did Ross Perot siphon more votes from in the '92 race?

[Mr. Smith]

Probably just slightly more from Bush, given how unpopular he was and the GOP fatigue.

While Clinton was a young face who "could feel your pain" (oh the irony of that now).

However, the results are still roughly equal.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Probably something like 40% Bush, 35% nonvoters, 25% Clinton. Worth noting that turnout surged in 1992.

[Intell]

Bush, though I'm left-leaning and would've voted for Perot in the US.

[RogueBeaver]

Both equally.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Remember, Perot kept hitting Bush during the election the most. If he had never entered the race I am sure Bush would have won.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

As a whole, both of them. It really depends on the area.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Both equally.

Yes, 38% from both. For some reason there are 2 stupid myths about 1992. One is that Clinton only won because of Perot. The other is that Clinton was the only Democrat who could have won. Bush's approval on election day was about 40%. That's all you need to know about whether he was going to win or lose.

[Hydera]

In the beginning he took from both, later on a lot of those "swing clinton/perot voters" went to clinton in the final months of the election campaign.

Most of those GOP leaning voters+Independents that held on for perot in 1996 eventually voted for Bush in 2000.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I say 2/3 from Bush 1/3 from Clinton

[Sasquatch]

Clinton

Before the first debate, Clinton had a lead between 10%-15% and Perot was hovering around 7%. After the first debate, Clinton's lead had dropped to high single digits and Perot was in the mid-teens. Bush's numbers stayed the same at around 37%.

[RINO Tom]

Both equally.

Yes, 38% from both. For some reason there are 2 stupid myths about 1992. One is that Clinton only won because of Perot. The other is that Clinton was the only Democrat who could have won. Bush's approval on election day was about 40%. That's all you need to know about whether he was going to win or lose.

Yeah, Presidents with dicey approval ratings NEVER win re-election!  Obama 2012...

[Phony Moderate]

Both equally.

Yes, 38% from both. For some reason there are 2 stupid myths about 1992. One is that Clinton only won because of Perot. The other is that Clinton was the only Democrat who could have won. Bush's approval on election day was about 40%. That's all you need to know about whether he was going to win or lose.

Yeah, Presidents with dicey approval ratings NEVER win re-election!  Obama 2012...

40% is probably worse than 'dicey', and Obama's approvals were virtually identical to Bush's in 2004. A better example would be Harry Truman in 1948.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

Both equally.

Yes, 38% from both. For some reason there are 2 stupid myths about 1992. One is that Clinton only won because of Perot. The other is that Clinton was the only Democrat who could have won. Bush's approval on election day was about 40%. That's all you need to know about whether he was going to win or lose.

Yeah, Presidents with dicey approval ratings NEVER win re-election!  Obama 2012...

Obama was at ~50% approval on election day.

[RINO Tom]

Both equally.

Yes, 38% from both. For some reason there are 2 stupid myths about 1992. One is that Clinton only won because of Perot. The other is that Clinton was the only Democrat who could have won. Bush's approval on election day was about 40%. That's all you need to know about whether he was going to win or lose.

Yeah, Presidents with dicey approval ratings NEVER win re-election!  Obama 2012...

Obama was at ~50% approval on election day.

I seem to remember more than a few polls that had him between 45-50%.  That would, theoretically, imply he's the underdog to get re-elected.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Both equally.

Yes, 38% from both. For some reason there are 2 stupid myths about 1992. One is that Clinton only won because of Perot. The other is that Clinton was the only Democrat who could have won. Bush's approval on election day was about 40%. That's all you need to know about whether he was going to win or lose.

Yeah, Presidents with dicey approval ratings NEVER win re-election!  Obama 2012...

Obama was at ~50% approval on election day.

I seem to remember more than a few polls that had him between 45-50%.  That would, theoretically, imply he's the underdog to get re-elected.

RCP had him at 50/47 on election day. Almost identical to his actual win margin of 51/47.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

According the exit polls from '92, he took votes from both Bush and Clinton equally.

[OSR stands with Israel]

This is in the wrong board

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Both equally.

Yes, 38% from both. For some reason there are 2 stupid myths about 1992. One is that Clinton only won because of Perot. The other is that Clinton was the only Democrat who could have won. Bush's approval on election day was about 40%. That's all you need to know about whether he was going to win or lose.

Yeah, Presidents with dicey approval ratings NEVER win re-election!  Obama 2012...

Obama was at ~50% approval on election day.

I seem to remember more than a few polls that had him between 45-50%.  That would, theoretically, imply he's the underdog to get re-elected.

Wrong.  Incumbents can easily win reelection with lousy job approval.  Just ask Michigan's last three governors.

EDIT: Make that three.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Both equally.

Yes, 38% from both. For some reason there are 2 stupid myths about 1992. One is that Clinton only won because of Perot. The other is that Clinton was the only Democrat who could have won. Bush's approval on election day was about 40%. That's all you need to know about whether he was going to win or lose.

Yeah, Presidents with dicey approval ratings NEVER win re-election!  Obama 2012...

Obama was at ~50% approval on election day.

Once you unskew the polls, you'll see that Obama's real approval rating on election day was 23%.

[Jay20]

Both equally.

Yes, 38% from both. For some reason there are 2 stupid myths about 1992. One is that Clinton only won because of Perot. The other is that Clinton was the only Democrat who could have won. Bush's approval on election day was about 40%. That's all you need to know about whether he was going to win or lose.

Yeah, Presidents with dicey approval ratings NEVER win re-election!  Obama 2012...

Obama and W. in 2012 and 2004 were in the 45%-49% job approval range, as well as Ford in 1976. George HW Bush in 1992 and Jimmy Carter 1980 were sub 40%. Ditto W. in 2008, in which his party successor lost. LBJ was at 41% in the most recent gallup poll before election day in 1968, HHH lost.

I think it can be said for POTUS elections, not nec. governor/senator, that above 50% on election day is a win guaranteed, 45-49% is a tossup, and below 40% is a decisive loss. The part from 41-45% is unknown, but fact is when you're below 40%, your party loses the White House.

Also, given how the trend of Bush still polling badly against Clinton when Perot was NOT in the race (July to September),  not merely in April/May, and Bush stayed there past Labor Day until the end of the month, http://www.gallup.com/poll/110548/gallup-presidential-election-trialheat-trends-19362004.aspx, its pretty safe to say Perot took more votes from Clinton than Bush.

[Sir Mohamed]

I say 60-40% Bush.

[beaver2.0]

I would say Bush.

[Phony Moderate]

Clinton had huge leads after Perot dropped out, don't forget.

[Jay20]

exactly, and they stayed that way long past labor day until the end of September, which anyone can see here http://www.gallup.com/poll/110548/gallup-presidential-election-trialheat-trends-19362004.aspx

And to beaver2.0 and MohamedChalid, what is your basis, if you're not gonna go with the polls that strongly indicated Perot did not affect Bush like that?