Don't count Dean out

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

Bill Clinton won for one reason only: Ross Perot.  Had Perot not run, Bush would have been reelected, probably with at least 50% (though that is debatable) - but he would have won.

The economy (as well as a failure to finish the Gulf War by getting rid of Saddam) hurt Bush a lot, but that wasn't going to cost him his reelection - Perot was (and did).  Bill Clinton was lucky, and there's no other way of getting around that little fact.

Hey, GWBFan, I have a new AOL screen name, it's MMAKI007@aol.com. That's two zeros and a seven.

[Gustaf]

I could be wrong but wasn't there a poll at the time which estimated that had Perot not run,

50% of Perot voters would have voted Bush
20% would not have voted
30% would have voted Clinton

I'm sure the #'s are at least a little off but I do recall hearing something like this.

Since, if I remember it correctly, Clinton beat Bush 43%-37%, with Perot at 20%, it would have meant Clinton beating Bush 49-47, but it would have been a lot closer. I might look into the states to see what the effects could have been.

I've made a quick investigation based on Wakie's numbers, and what I get is that the race would have been much closer, with Bush picking up Montana, Nevada, Colorado, Ohio, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Georgia and Wisconsin, but still falling 23 EVs short, losing 247-291.

[JNB]

 The Perot voters in many cases were non voters who voted for the first time, but the only poll I recall from 92 that was a what if only Bush and Clinton ran has Clinton ahead 52-45 as I recall. Clinton picked up on many of Perots themes.

  Clinton did not run a leftish campiagn in 92, far from it, I even recall reading the litature my father handed out(has was a voulenteer for the Clinton campaign in 92), Clinton called himself a "radical moderate". He campaigned on reducing the debt on the budget, and had the "New Democrat" theme going. He did run on a platform of expanded health care, but when he ran in 92, he did not run on the plan he unveiled in 93. Also of not during his election campaign in 92, he let the execuation of a mentally retarded prisoner proceed in AR,  whatever that was, it was far from running on a leftish platform.

[Inmate Trump]

"What if Perot had not run?"

I love these kinds of discussions - alternative history, "what if?" - it's great fun.  What if LBJ had run for a second term?  What if the South won the Civil War?  What if the Soviet Union never fell?  What if Al Gore had been elected?

This is all way off topic from what this thread was about, but it's interesting.

[StevenNick]

Personality wins elections; ideology doesn't.  Some times, ideology can be used to frame a person's personality (eg, making Dukakis seem unamerican).    Given that we have an incumbent, the election is Bush's to lose.  But if we have a poor economy and continued problems in Iraq, anybody who has a good campaign can win.  This is a big if.

You're right about that.  It doesn't really matter what a candidate believes, it's what the voters think the candidates believe.  In 1992 whether Bill Clinton actually ran as a moderate or a liberal, he was viewed by the American people as a moderate.  Barry Goldwater wasn't any more conservative than Ronald Reagan, yet Goldwater lost in a landslide to LBJ and Reagan won two landslides against Carter and then Mondale.  The only reason for Goldwater's loss and Reagan's win was that one was viewed as a radical and the other as a reasonable, if conservative, politician.

In 2004 Dean will not be viewed by the American people as a moderate because of his lefty stances on social issues.  Unlike Clinton, Dean will not have a Southern twang to hide behind.  There's nothing remotely charming about Dean, unlike Clinton.  And Dean won't be facing a politically clueless incumbent like Bush 41.

[Inmate Trump]

Bill Clinton won for one reason only: Ross Perot.  Had Perot not run, Bush would have been reelected, probably with at least 50% (though that is debatable) - but he would have won.

The economy (as well as a failure to finish the Gulf War by getting rid of Saddam) hurt Bush a lot, but that wasn't going to cost him his reelection - Perot was (and did).  Bill Clinton was lucky, and there's no other way of getting around that little fact.

Hey, GWBFan, I have a new AOL screen name, it's MMAKI007@aol.com. That's two zeros and a seven.

Cool!  I'll add you to my buddy list.  I tried IMing you on your other screen name, but I think something messed up.  I'll try this one sometime soon.

Just so you know, my AOL screen name is GarbageFanND.

[Nym90]

Exit polls in 1992 showed that the Perot voters would have split about evenly between Clinton, Bush, and not voting. So all of you who say that Perot cost Bush the race are basically saying that you believe the voters lied in the exit polls, or that the exit polls were way wrong. But they were right on everything else, so that's a pretty tough argument to make.
And to say that Perot cost Dole victory in 1996 is even more patently false, since even if every Perot vote had gone to Dole, he still would have lost in the popular vote to Clinton.
It's a complete myth that Perot cost Bush victory in 1992, and in fact he may have hurt Clinton's legitimacy by costing him a majority of the popular vote which he would have gotten in both 1992 and 1996 if Perot had not run.

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

Exit polls in 1992 showed that the Perot voters would have split about evenly between Clinton, Bush, and not voting. So all of you who say that Perot cost Bush the race are basically saying that you believe the voters lied in the exit polls, or that the exit polls were way wrong. But they were right on everything else, so that's a pretty tough argument to make.
And to say that Perot cost Dole victory in 1996 is even more patently false, since even if every Perot vote had gone to Dole, he still would have lost in the popular vote to Clinton.
It's a complete myth that Perot cost Bush victory in 1992, and in fact he may have hurt Clinton's legitimacy by costing him a majority of the popular vote which he would have gotten in both 1992 and 1996 if Perot had not run.

Yo, Nym90, where have you been?

[Gustaf]

Exit polls in 1992 showed that the Perot voters would have split about evenly between Clinton, Bush, and not voting. So all of you who say that Perot cost Bush the race are basically saying that you believe the voters lied in the exit polls, or that the exit polls were way wrong. But they were right on everything else, so that's a pretty tough argument to make.
And to say that Perot cost Dole victory in 1996 is even more patently false, since even if every Perot vote had gone to Dole, he still would have lost in the popular vote to Clinton.
It's a complete myth that Perot cost Bush victory in 1992, and in fact he may have hurt Clinton's legitimacy by costing him a majority of the popular vote which he would have gotten in both 1992 and 1996 if Perot had not run.

But if every Perot vote had gone to Dole, Dole would have won the Electoral College 270-268, picking up Arizona, Florida, Nevada, Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee, Ohio, Pennsylvania. He would have won Oregon and Wisconsin as well, but I have chosen to include the Nader vote in Clintons numbers and that makes them Democratic again.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

But every Perot vote would not have gone to Dole.

[Gustaf]

But every Perot vote would not have gone to Dole.

Yeah, I know. I was just saying.

[jaichind]

Exit polls in 1992 showed that the Perot voters would have split about evenly between Clinton, Bush, and not voting. So all of you who say that Perot cost Bush the race are basically saying that you believe the voters lied in the exit polls, or that the exit polls were way wrong. But they were right on everything else, so that's a pretty tough argument to make.
And to say that Perot cost Dole victory in 1996 is even more patently false, since even if every Perot vote had gone to Dole, he still would have lost in the popular vote to Clinton.
It's a complete myth that Perot cost Bush victory in 1992, and in fact he may have hurt Clinton's legitimacy by costing him a majority of the popular vote which he would have gotten in both 1992 and 1996 if Perot had not run.

I tend to disagree with your analysis.  One fact about polls is that people biased their answers as to be on the side of the winner.  All post-election polls show more people voted for the winner than the winner actually got.  A poll right after 9/11 showed about 59% of Americans claiming they voted for Bush in 2000 when in fact only 48% did.  

In the 1992 election it was pretty clear that Clinton was going to win even given that last minute surge in support for Bush I.  So that concensus I feel influenced the Perot votes when it came to exit polls.

[jravnsbo]

Almanac of American Politics" consistently referred to Dean as "one of the four or five most liberal governors in the United States."


found this interesting quote today in searches.

[Gustaf]

Exit polls in 1992 showed that the Perot voters would have split about evenly between Clinton, Bush, and not voting. So all of you who say that Perot cost Bush the race are basically saying that you believe the voters lied in the exit polls, or that the exit polls were way wrong. But they were right on everything else, so that's a pretty tough argument to make.
And to say that Perot cost Dole victory in 1996 is even more patently false, since even if every Perot vote had gone to Dole, he still would have lost in the popular vote to Clinton.
It's a complete myth that Perot cost Bush victory in 1992, and in fact he may have hurt Clinton's legitimacy by costing him a majority of the popular vote which he would have gotten in both 1992 and 1996 if Perot had not run.

I tend to disagree with your analysis.  One fact about polls is that people biased their answers as to be on the side of the winner.  All post-election polls show more people voted for the winner than the winner actually got.  A poll right after 9/11 showed about 59% of Americans claiming they voted for Bush in 2000 when in fact only 48% did.  

In the 1992 election it was pretty clear that Clinton was going to win even given that last minute surge in support for Bush I.  So that concensus I feel influenced the Perot votes when it came to exit polls.

That's right. I read about a problem occurring with polls in Sweden, where they tried to balance the interviewed group. I'll give you an example. Let's say you poll a group of American voters. To make sure you're getting a representative group, you ask them questions, like who they voted for. Now let's say 60% claim they voted for Bush in 2000. Then the institute might make a down-ward adjustment of his poll result, to get a more accurate picture. However, when a party is on the rise people tend to be ashamed of not having voted for "their" party or candidate the last time and lie, thus making the polls udnerestimate the positive trend for a candidate or party. This happens in Sweden where we have multiple parties, but I figure you could have similar problems in the US.

[Nym90]

True, but since the exit polls were right on in determing the actual Clinton Vs. Bush result, there wouldn't seem to be too much evidence to suggest that they were inaccurate. The exit poll that showed Perot voters splitting evenly was also right in determing in the Clinton-Bush-Perot result. So people weren't lying and saying that they voted for Clinton just to say they were with the winner.
Of course no one knows what would've happened if Perot hadn't run. The entire dynamics of the campaign would've been different. But I can't see any solid evidence to suggest that Bush would've won twice as many of the Perot voters as Clinton did, which is what would've had to happen in order for him to win. And that's assuming that all of the Perot voters had still voted, which many of them wouldn't have. If, say, a third of the Perot voters had stayed home, then Bush has to win 3/4 of the Perot vote in order to win.