Talk Elections

Much has been made out of the role that Ross Perot played and the effect he had on the 1992 Presidential election.

What if Ross Perot had not been a candidate in 1992 and the election was a straight two way race between

President George H W Bush/VP Dan Quayle
Governor Bill Clinton/Senator Al Gore

How would this election have turned out?
Thoughts?
Maps?

 

I think the campaign would have started off with a moderately sized Bush lead in May (maybe 49-35 Bush or so).  Then, by the summer, Clinton wouldh have closed the gap to about 45-45.  However, by Labor Day, they would be tied, and by election day, Bush would win about 53-47 or 54-46.  I think Clinton would have stressed being the Southern candidate more.

I think it would have produced somewhat of an odd map, maybe something like this:

()

More changes than just assigning Perot's votes to Bush or Clinton.  For one thing, Bush faces far less hostile ads.  For another, Perot never gets 35%+ of the popular votes and quits the race all but endorsing Clinton.  This would eliminate the event which propelled Clinton into the lead.

Bush wins, but it's really really close.

How does Bush win Wisconsin? It's a Dukakis state. It makes no sense for a state to vote for a weak candidate over Bush at a time when he was fairly popular, and then vote for Bush at a time when he was much less popular over a much stronger candidate.

I say Clinton still wins. Most of the support Perot got outside of the mountain west (besides protest votes) was protectionist Democrats.

Actual:
Clinton 41.13%
Bush: 36.78%
Perot: 21.51%

Split the Perot vote 61-39:
Bush: 49.90%
Clinton: 49.51%

If you look at Perot's support in Wisconsin 1992, it was extremely evenly spread across the state, but what is really telling is that his weakest counties were Dane, Milwaukee, Douglass, and the Menominee reservation - all highly Democrat areas.  Giving Clinton 39 percent of the Perot vote is generous.


From the late-80s into the mid-90s, Democrat loyalty among Wisconsin rural voters fell like a stone.  You still see some of it here and there, especially in the West and Northwest, but eastern rural voters have switched to becoming Republicans.  Concerns over gun rights (hunting is huge around here) and moral issues have won out over the older, economic concerns.  Reaganomics was very bad for Wisconsin, but by 1992 most people outside the big cities had forgotten about that.

Wisconsin barely voted for Dukakis, and that was probably only because of the farm crisis.  I think the economy would have been stressed a lot less during the campaign, and Desert Storm more.

()
Clinton - 52
Bush - 486

Let me get this straight---no one thinks Clinton would win CA, WA, IL, NJ, MI, PA or even NV??? I think he was a lock to win OH since the economy was a big issue here then. I remember that quite well.

What were Perot's campaign points in 1992? I find it hard to believe Clinton's 5-6% PV margin and better than 2-1 in the Electoral College would be completely negated by Perot or even 1 event.

Here is what I think would have happened.()

Clinton would have won.

()

Clinton/Gore: 48,858,570 (49.6%); 346 EV's
Bush/Quayle: 47,002,078 (47.7%); 192 EV's
Other: 2,639,382 (2.7%); 0 EV's

I think Clinton would have won most of those states, excepting NV.  OH might stayed Bush.  I would predict a smaller Clinton victory overall.

You really just can't divide up the Perot vote.  When Perot dropped out, a lot of his voters went to Clinton.  If Perot were never in the race, Bush would not have gotten those voters.

Hopefully I posted the map correctly. Never done one before.

()

Close race but Bush pulls it out. Missouri and Wisconsin decide it all.

Bush: 281
Clinton: 257

Everyone's forgetting how weak Bush was.  Perot didn't beat Bush; Bush beat himself.  Perot's candidacy provided an alternative for angry Republicans...and without Perot, a majority of those angry at Bush would have stayed home.

"Read my lips, no new taxes."

we'll never know

my guess Clinton wins can't explain it though

Clinton wins.  Perot supporters were pissed off at what was going down in Washtington.  They would have either A. Stayed Home or B.  Broke evenly or just barely for Bush.   Clinton would have won, but would not have carried Montana, Georgia, and Ohio.

Anybody know any poll info from the period when Perot had dropped out? I've always wondered about this, but I've never seen the numbers.

Gallup does have graphs of the polling data for all elections since 1936, but I have lost the link.  Maybe somebody can help us out.

^^^^^^^^^^

Bush 41 was at a low point in his presidency in 1992. From the bar code readers in NH, the Buchanan fight, the lack of conservative support, all the way through the summer campaign, he was not connecting with the voters.  A wide spectrum of voters were prepared to stay home if they found no alternative to Bush.

I agree. Clinton would have won under similar, if less exciting circumstances.

I'm keeling over from laughter right now.

One thing I don't understand is how Perot helped Clinton to win Georgia and Montana, but not even Florida?!  Maybe I'm just looking at this from a 'now' perspective, but it certainly seems weird that a key swing state stayed for Bush, while two very safe Republican states switched over.

Well, Florida wasn't exactly a swing state.  In '88 it went for Bush by 22 points, while the popular vote was only 8 points for Bush.  Even in '96 when the rest of the country went for Clinton 49-40 it went for him by a smaller 48-42.

So that accounts for part of it, yet it can be argued that if Georgia and Montana (particularly Montana) certainly Florida should, and my only answer is that Clinton would have stood a great chance at winning Georgia even if Perot hadn't been running and that Perot could appeal to the libertarian-conservative types in Montana wheras Perot took away many suburban voters in Florida who would have voted for Clinton.

It was based more on the math...I just added Perot's results and Bush's together.

Georgia was still very much in touch with its "yellow dog" roots in many areas at the time. Only the suburbs around Atlanta were reliably Republican.  Clinton's southern appeal was strong enough with voters, coupled with Perot on the ballot, to narrowly win the state.  Perot also siphoned off a big chunk of voters in Montana.  Also, Montana was not even a strong state for Bush 41 to begin with.  It only went for him 52%-46% in 1988, defintely not the big wins that his son had there.

I believe that Clinton would have won very narrowly.  It seems that he would have won the popular vote by about 3%, and the electoral vote by about 50 electoral votes.

Which was the least likely outcome of any possible in this scenario. Exit polling in the states I've looked at indicates that if Perot voters went to the polls, the majority where prepared to swing (barely) to Clinton. Bush would need a considerable majority (60-40 or better) of Perot voters to get close. He wouldn't even be able to break 50% in all likelihood.

()