Why did George H.W. Bush lose in 1992?

[dw93]

The recession. The loss of white-collar jobs caused by the recession resulted in white-collar voters becoming Democrats to this day, and the appointment of Clarence Thomas alienated socially liberal voters who had been Republicans for economic reasons, and him breaking his tax pledge depressed voter turnout. Clinton was also simply more charismatic than HW Bush. Clinton talked about how he could relate voters and had been through similar things.

This, but I would also add Conservative alienation due to Souter's appointment. There was also Pat Buchanan's primary run from the right, voter fatigue after 12 years of Republican rule, and the fact that Bush ran a terrible campaign in 1992. He waited too long to start campaigning thinking the Gulf War alone would give him a victory, and he offered nothing with regards to what he wanted to do in a 2nd term. Bush also wasn't one to brag and thus didn't talk about the many foreign policy successes of his either.

And no, Perot DIDN'T cost Bush the election!!!!!!!!

[dw93]

The recession. The loss of white-collar jobs caused by the recession resulted in white-collar voters becoming Democrats to this day, and the appointment of Clarence Thomas alienated socially liberal voters who had been Republicans for economic reasons, and him breaking his tax pledge depressed voter turnout. Clinton was also simply more charismatic than HW Bush. Clinton talked about how he could relate voters and had been through similar things.

And no, Perot DIDN'T cost Bush the election!!!!!!!!

No, but he certainly cost him Montana and Georgia at the very least. Maybe Tennessee and New Hampshire, too.

Sure he may have cost Bush states (I agree on Montana and Georgia, not sure about Tennessee or New Hampshire), but costing him states is not the same as costing him the election. There are still Republicans to this day that think Perot cost Bush the election when the facts overwhelmingly say otherwise. Clinton was leading Bush by a double digit margin before Perot re entered. Once he did, it was Clinton's poll numbers, not Bush's that fell.

[dw93]

I know we like to think of 1992 as a masterful, against-the-odds victory for Clinton, but realistically the dam had been getting ready to break for a while.

I think what people say was surprising was that Clinton got nominated.

Clinton getting nominated wasn't really a surprise at all. The field was weak as a lot of top tear, big name Democrats (Cuomo, Gore, Gephardt, Bentson, Bradley, etc...) sat the race out fearing Bush would be unbeatable due to the success of the Gulf War and the fall of the Soviet Union.