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

[m4567]

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

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

[Adam Griffin]

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.

[darklordoftech]

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.

[twenty42]

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.

[gottsu]

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.

[Grassroots]

The economy.

[darklordoftech]

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.

[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. 

[twenty42]

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.

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.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

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.

[fluffypanther19]

It's the economy, stupid.

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

[ReaganLimbaugh]

Read my lips, no new taxes.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

"It's the economy, stupid."

[morgankingsley]

clinton was a more cunning and convincing speaker.

[junior chįmp]

Read my lips, no new taxes.

no

clinton was a more cunning and convincing speaker.

NO

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.

NOOOOO

"It's the economy, stupid."

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

[OSR stands with Israel]

Read my lips, no new taxes.

no

clinton was a more cunning and convincing speaker.

NO

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.

NOOOOO

"It's the economy, stupid."

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

[junior chįmp]

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.

[OSR stands with Israel]

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

[junior chįmp]

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.

[Mr.Phips]

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

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

[S019]

"It's the economy, stupid."

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

[Blair]

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?

[Blair]

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?

[Pericles]

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.