Why was Perot blamed for Bush I's defeat in the first place?

[So the Heroes Fall]

this really is what bugs me the most. It seems that Republicans just wanted a scapegoat rather than admit their guy just lost which seems likely, but many statistical analyses have been posted here that proves this false, Perot did not cost Bush I the election. However, I think the charge is ridiculous on its face. A brief overview of the 1992 election should make it obvious that Bush's defeat was no fluke.

Let's look at the situation in 1988:

-Bush was the VP of a very popular president
-Dukakis was a weak and uncharasmatic opponent with not the best record to run on
-Dukakis also had a few scandals such as the Willy Horton case
-Dukakis also made some huge blunders, such as the infamous tank photo op. He ran an awful campaign in general
-The country was undergoing a realignment which at the time benefited Republicans more. 1980 marked the final nail in the coffin of the Democratic Solid South, and the GOP hadn't yet loss their suburban strongholds.

So it's not hard to see how Bush I won in 1988. It was his to lose.

but then look at 1992:

-The economy was doing poorly
-Bush I was far more unpopular than he was in 1988, due to the economy and breaking his "read my lips" promise
-Bush I's approval ratings were also tanking and in the 30s for awhile
-Clinton was a much more charasmatic candidate with a strong moderate record
-Clinton had his scandals, but the media was much kinder to him than Dukakis (I'm talking about the campaign here of course, after he took office is a whole different story)
-Clinton didn't make any huge blunders, in fact he made some notably very good moves, such as answering the infamous "boxers or briefs" question and playing the sax on Arsenio Hall
-The country's realignment was starting to even out, with once GOP strongholds in the suburbs shifting or beginning to shift to the Democrats

Now is it really that hard to believe that Clinton would beat Bush I in a two way race under that scenario? I fail to see any reason as to why Bush I should've on paper been the victor given the above situation. So the claim fails not only statistically, but in my view logically as well.

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

I tend to agree as the states that Bush lost due to Perot didn't matter enough to make a difference. Example would be Montana which I believe Bush DID lose because of Perot. I guess Perot didn't want to be President because he WOULD have one if he hadn't dropped out.

[The Duke]

The Republicans gained 10 seats in the House, showing to me that many Perot voters voted Republican down ticket and would have been Bush voters (specifically they were Reagan Democrats) had Perot not been in the race.

He also acted as a second front to attack Bush on things like the deficit, making Bush look worse than he really was, and helping Clinton.

[So the Heroes Fall]

actually, the gain in the House was more likely just a preview of what was to happen next election. although the assault weapons ban and failure of Hillarycare are mostly responsible for 1994, it was also due to the fact that racial gerrymandering was first done big time and that many long time conservative southern Democrats retired. lots of the sitting incumbents who lost in 1994 actually came very close in 92, Clinton's coattails thus saved them. The Democratic stronghold in the south in Congress had been slowly eroding for awhile, 1994 just sped things up.

also, an analysis I posted here before showed that Perot voters only voted for Republican candidates for Congress by marginal numbers, if they all voted for Bush by the same numbers it would've only made up 1/7 of his margin of defeat.

[opebo]

Responsible Republicans are just angry at Perot and the rather disloyal Republicans who voted for him.

[Vasall des Midas]

Responsible Republicans are just angry at Perot and the rather disloyal Republicans who voted for him.

Yup, anger at losing the White House is probably the main reason - rather like anger at Nader voters among Dems.
The seat gain is due to redistricting.

[The Duke]

I find it unlikely that the Republicans gained fully 10 seats, ALL due to redistricting.

[Reaganfan]

Perot's 19% of the popular vote really hurt Bush though.

[So the Heroes Fall]

No, as it came from both sides. Unless you honestly believe Bush would've gotten all of the Perot vote and Clinton would've only won Arkansas and narrow pluralities in New York and Maryland.

[opebo]

No, as it came from both sides. Unless you honestly believe Bush would've gotten all of the Perot vote and Clinton would've only won Arkansas and narrow pluralities in New York and Maryland.

Probably at least 75% or more of Perot's vote came from people who would normally vote Republican.

[So the Heroes Fall]

then if you add that then Bush would've gotten over 37% in St. Louis county, Minnesota, the most Democratic predominantely white county in the country. considering he didn't even get 31% against Dukakis, that seems pretty unlikely for the reasons listed in the first post. Even Reagan barely broke 30% there. In fact, what Bush would've gotten with those numbers is only 2 points less than what Nixon got against McGovern. Doesn't make much sense with the situation at the time.

[Vasall des Midas]

then if you add that then Bush would've gotten over 37% in St. Louis county, Minnesota, the most Democratic predominantely white county in the country. considering he didn't even get 31% against Dukakis, that seems pretty unlikely for the reasons listed in the first post. Even Reagan barely broke 30% there. In fact, what Bush would've gotten with those numbers is only 2 points less than what Nixon got against McGovern. Doesn't make much sense with the situation at the time.

75% is probably too high - many Perot voters didn't normally vote, after all - but more would normally vote Republican than Democrat. Note that the average Perot voter of 92 was muc hless Conservative than the average Perot voter of 96.

[cole]

how many voters did Perot draw into politics? i.e. how many would've just stayed home had he not been in the election?

[Vasall des Midas]

Sorry, don't have any figures.

[So the Heroes Fall]

www.leinsdorf.com/perot.htm

the turnout was 13 million higher than in 1988, so probably somewhere around that number.

[Vasall des Midas]

Not that many.
America's population is growing, so you'd expect the no. of votes cast to rise every time.

[So the Heroes Fall]

yeah, but it was a significant number still. I doubt the rise of votes in the past was that high.

[dazzleman]

I don't think Perot was responsible for Bush 41's 1992 defeat, for 2 reasons.

First, even though Perot tended to capture more Republican than Democratic voters, the absence of Perot in the race does not mean a majority of his voters would have gone to the polls and voted for Bush.  My guess is that many would have stayed home, some would have voted for Bush, but Clinton would have still ended up winning.  In terms of pure numbers, Perot surely helped Clinton, but I just don't think Bush had the momentum to win that year.

Second, the very presence of a Perot-type candidate in the race was an indication of Bush 41's weakness.  The political system has a way of doing that when a candidate is unpalatable to the people who are supposed to be his main supporters.  Perot's main support came from voters normally inclined to vote Republican, and the fact that they were open to him in the first place shows how disaffected they were with Bush.  How do you think Perot would have fared against Reagan?  The answer to that is clear - he wouldn't have dared to run, and if he had, he would have been blown out of the water.

[Vasall des Midas]

Second, the very presence of a Perot-type candidate in the race was an indication of Bush 41's weakness.  The political system has a way of doing that when a candidate is unpalatable to the people who are supposed to be his main supporters.

Good point!

[phillies]

There is actual polling data on Perot voters and what they would have done if Perot had not been on the ballot.

My recollection is that Perot picked up selectively not Republican conservatives but Democratic party small businessmen and the like, the people who had worked up from running the pump to owning the service station, and the like.

I may misremember, but there was actual data that should answer this question.

[GPORTER]

this really is what bugs me the most. It seems that Republicans just wanted a scapegoat rather than admit their guy just lost which seems likely, but many statistical analyses have been posted here that proves this false, Perot did not cost Bush I the election. However, I think the charge is ridiculous on its face. A brief overview of the 1992 election should make it obvious that Bush's defeat was no fluke.

Let's look at the situation in 1988:

-Bush was the VP of a very popular president
-Dukakis was a weak and uncharasmatic opponent with not the best record to run on
-Dukakis also had a few scandals such as the Willy Horton case
-Dukakis also made some huge blunders, such as the infamous tank photo op. He ran an awful campaign in general
-The country was undergoing a realignment which at the time benefited Republicans more. 1980 marked the final nail in the coffin of the Democratic Solid South, and the GOP hadn't yet loss their suburban strongholds.

So it's not hard to see how Bush I won in 1988. It was his to lose.

but then look at 1992:

-The economy was doing poorly
-Bush I was far more unpopular than he was in 1988, due to the economy and breaking his "read my lips" promise
-Bush I's approval ratings were also tanking and in the 30s for awhile
-Clinton was a much more charasmatic candidate with a strong moderate record
-Clinton had his scandals, but the media was much kinder to him than Dukakis (I'm talking about the campaign here of course, after he took office is a whole different story)
-Clinton didn't make any huge blunders, in fact he made some notably very good moves, such as answering the infamous "boxers or briefs" question and playing the sax on Arsenio Hall
-The country's realignment was starting to even out, with once GOP strongholds in the suburbs shifting or beginning to shift to the Democrats

Now is it really that hard to believe that Clinton would beat Bush I in a two way race under that scenario? I fail to see any reason as to why Bush I should've on paper been the victor given the above situation. So the claim fails not only statistically, but in my view logically as well.

It has always been said by we Republicans that Perot cost H. W. Bush reelection and I still believe that it was true. Something else that hurt Bush was the Buchanan challenge in the primaries. The Perot factor which split the republican vote and the Buchanan challenge ultimately cost  Bush the election.

[SPC]

I did an analysis of the 1992 results and came to the conclusion that:

~50% of Perot voters would have voted for Bush 41
~25% of Perot voters would have voted for Clinton
~25% of Perot voters would not have voted

Even still, I think Clinton would have narrowly won the election.

[Verily]

I did an analysis of the 1992 results and came to the conclusion that:

~50% of Perot voters would have voted for Bush 41
~25% of Perot voters would have voted for Clinton
~25% of Perot voters would not have voted

Even still, I think Clinton would have narrowly won the election.

Polls at the time (when Perot first dropped out) indicated that Perot voters split about 40-40-20, though more probably wouldn't have voted than admitted to not planning to do so.

[Smash255]

IIRC Perot voters would have gone marginally to Bush in the range of 55-45, may have been enough to flip two or three states at the most.  Would have been closer, but Clinton would have still won by a decent margin (somewhere between Bush's 04 margin and the margin Clinton won by in 92.  96 the Dole-Clinton split was almost 50-50

[OC]

I don't see Ross Perot as dramatically shifting the states, Clinton would of won anyway. But he put budget deficits back on the table and made it a chief concern for both parties ever since he ran. And since 92, both parties especially the Dems are concerned with balanced budgets and I think that was the main factor in GH Bush's defeat. Perot affected the overall debate and the states voted accordingly.