Talk Elections

What were the main reasons he lost in 1992?

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!!!!!!!!

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.

Uh, what's your definition of "white collar" in this context?  I wouldn't say that "white collar" voters have been Democrats from 1992-2016...

Lawyers, doctors, scientists

I agree with another thread that Bush did underperform slightly because the economy was GROWING (if slowly) and we were at peace. Was conservative opposition to Bush really that bad? Buchanan didn't win a single primary, and Bush got over 70% of the primary vote.

But this is one election where campaigns did make a big difference. And Clinton and Perot had a tendency to gang up on Bush.

That was more of the GOP lurching hard to the right socially with Gingrich and his "revolution", leading to the demise of Republican dominance in the suburbs.

White Collar can also mean Bankers , Managers , Financial Analysts as well

And according to this many types of Doctors were Republicans in 2015:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/03/why-your-flight-attendant-is-probably-a-democrat/?utm_term=.bed155277dbd

Sounds like you're just talking about people you might know in New Jersey then ... Republican voting has been directly tied to a higher income in every election since then, including 2016.

Everyone in my town has a graduate school degree. They think a vote for the GOP is a vote for guns, homophobia, the government controlling women's bodies, and war. They also consider tobacco and alcohol to be worse than heroin. There's no bars or music, and police yell at any teenagers who they see outside at night.

Right, so a completely anecdotal piece from you about one town in one state in one region of the entire country?  I also find it highly unlikely that everyone in your entire town has a graduate degree, LMAO.

I've seen and heard similar sentiments in surrounding towns, and I never said that all white-collar people people vote Democrat.

And that's still only in a very, very Democratic state.  I shouldn't have to explain why it's problematic to extrapolate these *sentiments* you're hearing into making a claim like, "a majority of white collar people have voted Democratic since 1992," especially when the top few income brackets have gone Republican in nearly every election since then.

Where's this lol

I live in Ridgewood, a very affluent town, and this doesn't match up that well. We've been a swing town (albeit Clinton and Murphy both hit 60% here for the first time since LBJ), so I assume you're from somewhere like...Montclair :|

LOL so basically in the same state or same region.


Wealthier people by the way are still more likely to vote GOP than Democrats.

I didn't mean a majority. I just meant enough to make a difference in an election.
You are correct that Montclair is one of the surrounding towns I was referring to. I'm often in Montclair and I know lot of people who live in Montclair.

+1 to that last poimt. HW was far too robotic and detached. Clinton really understood. The best example of from the townhall debate (https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/bill-clinton-debate_n_1971685) (I‘m sure most people remember this, but i’ll reiterate because it’ a great part of the campaign) - someone asked how the debt personally affected the candidates, so Perot started by saying that it caused him to leave business and enter politics, then Bush fumbled over the point that you don’t have to be hit by a recession to understand it, and talked about the impact on interest rates and the value of the dollar. But Bill knew that the voter was badically just talking about the economy, and talked about people he knew in Arkansas who had lost their jobs and their homes over the past few years, and managed to really relate to the voter.

Indeed. Also, in the first debate, HW just said that legalizing marijuana "is not the answer" while Bill talked about how going to jail helped his brother get clean.

The recession, a different type of Democrat who somehow overcame the Atwater style attacks, and 12 years of Republican Presidents was probably too much for the national environment back in '92.

In no particular orer:

Formidable challenges from the Right and from "populists" (definitely Pat Buchanan in the primaries, arguably Ross Perot throughout the campaign) regarding anger over his breaking of the"No New Taxes" promise and perceived softness on confrontational Culture War issues compared to Reagan, an utter lack of domestic policy vision (the "vision" thing") in the midst of a terrible recession, a seemingly "out-of-touch" quasi-aristocratic focus on foreign diplomacy brought to you by the Ivy League Eastern Establishment, and favoring deficit reduction in the form of cutting spending on both defense and domestic social programs as well as raising taxes on working-class and middle-class workers (including some upper-middle class, white-collar types - ie. many in the Republican base) and unpopular free trade agreements (NAFTA was negotiated by Bush, not Clinton, FWIW), and having an utter lack of charisma or populist touch compared to Buchanan, Perot, or of course, Bill Clinton.

Plus, Bush was basically riding Reagan's coattails to begin with - he faced solid Democratic majorities in Congress throughout his term, and the Republican Party was increasingly driven by Newt Gingrich, Pat Buchanan, the Christian Coalition and Religious Right in general, and the rise of bomb-throwing shock jock types in talk radio (Rush Limbaugh being the most notable example here). And in the modern, post-Truman era (1952-onward), has a political party held the Presidency for more than two terms at any other time?

Perot's presence on the ballot didn't cost Bush the election.  However, Perot constantly attacking Bush on the deficit and the economy for much of Spring 1992 (which pushed Bush's approval ratings down into the 30's), certainly had an impact.

There's already been a Republican fatigue back in 1988. Dukakis had a comfortable lead until summer and if he'd been a better candidate, he'd have won. 

It's the economy, stupid.

He wasn't bad, but just enough things went against ihim:

1. Two strong oponents
2. Weak economy
3. Lack of charisma/clear vision

Obviously, he was seen as quite out-of-touch with the public in general. Arguably he only got the nod (both in the primary and general) due to Reagan's blessing and association.

I think there's also something to be said about the 1980s. While plenty would classify it as a huge boom-time economically (as it was, at least on paper; that of course excludes the structural debt created to prop up said boom), it was arguably the first full decade where a significant segment of Americans began to see their standards of living decline markedly. You can in some ways compare Reagan's second term and GHWB's term to that of Obama's two terms: relatively large economic gains compared to the starting point, but a lot of blue-collar people left to wither on the vine.

I think some of the same underlying sentiments that defeated Hillary also defeated GHWB - though they were of course much less hostile in terms of how they expressed themselves in the case of the latter.

It's no coincidence that Pat Buchanan, a proto-Trump, ran in 1992.

Irrespective of candidates and campaigns, HW was fighting an extremely uphill battle against historical trends alone. Republicans were not only running for their fourth consecutive term in the White House, but also doing so in the wake of a 10-point Dem swing in 1988 and decisive Dem victories in the 1990 midterms. 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.

To me, the most interesting thing about 1992 was the rampant distaste for both major political parties that ignited the surge for Perot. Despite the bad economy and Republican fatigue, there were still millions of Democrats who rejected Clinton due to his scandals and then-Bohemian centrism. This is unimaginable in today’s polarized political atmosphere, where the two most unpopular presidential candidates in history still both managed to score at least 46% of the PV.

Clinton was simply younger and more charismatic and had a very keen campaign staff, composed of young peoples, too. Bush was nothing more than a stable, old-line Republican uncle from Texas with his large approval ratings (First Gulf War). I guess, every presidential candidate would love to have such staff like Clinton in '92.

The economy.

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. 

If you watch the Election Night returns on YouTube, you'll hear the commentators over and over again talk about how shocking the D wave was that night after R's were doing so well a year ago. This stood in stark contrast to 2008, where it seemed like the media was just going through the motions to get to the big moment at 11:00.

The main reason Bush lost was because of the recession and his indifferent response to it.

The second reason was the realignment that came to fruition in the Northeast.  The Northeast became the Democratic base in response to the rise to prominence of Evangelicals in the GOP and Northeasterners' distaste for this.

/thread; after the success of the gulf war, it would had been a landslide if the economy didn't go to sh@t

Read my lips, no new taxes.

"It's the economy, stupid."

clinton was a more cunning and convincing speaker.

no


NO


NOOOOO


The only thing that ever matters to the idiot voters. Find 1992 on the graph:

()

The economy was just as bad in 1991 as in 1992 if not worse, but if the election was held in 1991 HW Bush would have won in a massive landslide

nope. he still would of lost.

Lol his Approval Rating was in the high 60s low 70s for most of the year and most polls showed him obliterating the dem field.


And if you think all Americans care about is the state of the economy  why do you think the Republicans won in 2002 despite the economy bottoming out in the early 2000s. And how do you think a Bush vs Kerry election would have gone in November of 2001

GDP growth in election years is only .4 percentage points higher than in other years, but income growth is a full 1.5 percentage points higher than other years. The greater effect of income growth should be expected because voters directly experience income, not production. Accordingly, Kerry would of lost too then.

Rove got Bush and Republicans to cleverly hide behind 9/11 that year.

This, there was a Recession in 1991-92 and Perot, and later Clinton, blamed it on Bush, had Perot not withdrawn there would have been an EC deadlock, but I think Clinton is elected, because of Dem majorities in both chambers

George H.W was cruising in 1991 because of the Gulf War.

Besides, it shouldn't be forgotten just how good a campaigner Clinton was in 1992, and how aggressively fought his campaign was. I'm sure someone like Cuomo, Gore, Brown etc could have won,  but Clinton was very impressive.

Besides Bush bombed in the debates, faced an ideological primary challenge, had a weak economy and was a weak campaigner- doesn't have much in his favour does he?

George H.W was cruising in 1991 because of the Gulf War.

Besides, it shouldn't be forgotten just how good a campaigner Clinton was in 1992, and how aggressively fought his campaign was. I'm sure someone like Cuomo, Gore, Brown etc could have won,  but Clinton was very impressive.

Besides Bush bombed in the debates, faced an ideological primary challenge, had a weak economy and was a weak campaigner- doesn't have much in his favour does he?

()
Bush's approval rating was in the toilet by 1992. Fundamentally that was the economy doing him in, and while the read my lips debacle and the campaign didn't help an incumbent President (especially one running for a fourth term of their party) with the economy Bush had wouldn't win. If foreign policy had remained a big issue, like if the war in Iraq had continued until after the election Bush may have been able to survive but the economy meant he started at a disadvantage. Perot may indeed have been a spoiler in his favor given the strength of opposition to him and how Clinton led by such landslide margins when Perot was out of the race(a 1999 study suggested Perot reduced Clinton's margin by 7 points, though that seems excessive)-though indeed he may have just had no major effect given the exit polls said Perot voters split evenly between Bush and Clinton(38-38). Bush may have lost by less against a different Democrat or if he'd run a better campaign, but his loss was both pretty substantial and to be expected based on the fundamentals so most scenarios would probably have him losing.