Title: 1992 Election Results if Perot wasn't in and 60% of those votes broke for Bush Post by: 21st Century Independent on April 04, 2010, 07:03:35 AM It's not illogical to think that 60% of Perot voters who were probably frustrated Republicans, would have voted for Bush.
This is the Map and EV result. () Clinton 306 Bush 232 Title: Re: 1992 Election Results if Perot wasn't in and 60% of those votes broke for Bush Post by: King on April 04, 2010, 07:21:53 AM Except, though his policies were conservative, Perot's broad appeal was his anti-establishment reformist persona. That's not the kind of voting block that lists the unpopular incumbent President and Washington veteran Bush as it's #2 choice.
Runoff election trends at the state and local levels suggest that in most cases the third party voting block overwhelming either (a) doesn't vote with their candidate gone or (b) goes against the incumbent. Title: Re: 1992 Election Results if Perot wasn't in and 60% of those votes broke for Bush Post by: Nym90 on April 04, 2010, 10:14:14 AM Seems reasonable. There's no way to know for certain how Perot voters would've voted if he hadn't been a candidate (obviously overall turnout would've been much lower).
Though I would point out that exit polls indicated the Perot vote would've split evenly between Clinton and Bush. Also, when Perot reentered the race in October, Clinton and Bush's percentages in the first Gallup poll immediately thereafter went down by the same amount as compared to the poll immediately preceding, and Clinton's lead was thus completely unaffected. When Perot exited the race in July, Clinton went way up in the polls immediately thereafter, though obviously the fact that the Dem convention was going on at that time had something to do with it, as well. Title: Re: 1992 Election Results if Perot wasn't in and 60% of those votes broke for Bush Post by: RosettaStoned on April 04, 2010, 12:21:23 PM If Perot did not run, Clinton would still win, but it would be closer.
Title: Re: 1992 Election Results if Perot wasn't in and 60% of those votes broke for Bush Post by: Sasquatch on April 04, 2010, 06:59:25 PM There is a clip on youtube that showed a Gallup Poll from October 1992 before the first debate. It was...
Clinton - 52% Bush - 37% Perot - 9% So if the final was... Clinton - 43% Bush - 37% Perot - 19% Wouldn't that mean that most Perot voters would have been Clinton voters in a two-way race? Title: Re: 1992 Election Results if Perot wasn't in and 60% of those votes broke for Bush Post by: DS0816 on April 06, 2010, 05:15:43 AM I reject the premise of giving 60 percent of Ross Perot's [Ind.-Texas] vote to George Bush [R-Texas]. In that election, the incumbent had an approval rating below 45 percent. Unseating of the incumbent (or incumbent White House party) was obvious. So I've split the Perot vote 50/50 and gave half to the winner: Bill Clinton [D-Arkansas]. Had I given 60 percent to Clinton, five states would've been in his column: Arizona [8], Florida [25], North Carolina [14], South Dakota [3], and Bush's/Perot's home state of Texas [32], which, prior to Clinton, had been carried along with N.C. by all prevailing Democrats in presidential elections. (Kansas [6] and Wyoming [3] would've been close.)
ELECTION 1992: NO PEROT * George Bush [R-Texas] vs. Bill Clinton [D-Arkansas] () Bush 46.90% 168 electoral votes Clinton 52.41% 370 electoral votes Title: Re: 1992 Election Results if Perot wasn't in and 60% of those votes broke for Bush Post by: Nichlemn on April 14, 2010, 10:58:03 AM One thing to note is that even though exit polls suggested that Perot took about the same amount of votes from each candidate nationwide, there would likely be some variability among individual states. Perot could possibly have cost either (or both) candidates states.
Title: Re: 1992 Election Results if Perot wasn't in and 60% of those votes broke for Bush Post by: Nym90 on April 14, 2010, 11:39:18 AM That's true. It has been suggested that Perot took votes away from Clinton in the Northeast, but from Bush in the West. If so, he could have cost Bush electoral votes even while having no net effect on the popular vote. However, we would need exit polling or a more thorough precinct by precinct analysis to confirm this.
Title: Re: 1992 Election Results if Perot wasn't in and 60% of those votes broke for Bush Post by: RJ on April 14, 2010, 11:53:54 AM There is a clip on youtube that showed a Gallup Poll from October 1992 before the first debate. It was... Clinton - 52% Bush - 37% Perot - 9% So if the final was... Clinton - 43% Bush - 37% Perot - 19% Wouldn't that mean that most Perot voters would have been Clinton voters in a two-way race? Let's not forget the 1996 election also went like this: Clinton - 49% Dole - 40% Perot - 9% With Perot being less of a factor, Clinton's margin of victory was greater. Title: Re: 1992 Election Results if Perot wasn't in and 60% of those votes broke for Bush Post by: phk on April 14, 2010, 12:06:00 PM There is a clip on youtube that showed a Gallup Poll from October 1992 before the first debate. It was... Clinton - 52% Bush - 37% Perot - 9% So if the final was... Clinton - 43% Bush - 37% Perot - 19% Wouldn't that mean that most Perot voters would have been Clinton voters in a two-way race? Let's not forget the 1996 election also went like this: Clinton - 49% Dole - 40% Perot - 9% With Perot being less of a factor, Clinton's margin of victory was greater. Basically D-leaners who supported Perot in 1992, returned to the Democratic fold in 1996. Title: Re: 1992 Election Results if Perot wasn't in and 60% of those votes broke for Bush Post by: Eleden on April 15, 2010, 05:33:10 PM There is a clip on youtube that showed a Gallup Poll from October 1992 before the first debate. It was... Clinton - 52% Bush - 37% Perot - 9% So if the final was... Clinton - 43% Bush - 37% Perot - 19% Wouldn't that mean that most Perot voters would have been Clinton voters in a two-way race? Let's not forget the 1996 election also went like this: Clinton - 49% Dole - 40% Perot - 9% With Perot being less of a factor, Clinton's margin of victory was greater. Basically D-leaners who supported Perot in 1992, returned to the Democratic fold in 1996. Not to mention Clinton held the advantage of being a somewhat popular incumbent running against a lackluster Republican. Title: Re: 1992 Election Results if Perot wasn't in and 60% of those votes broke for Bu Post by: pragmatic liberal on April 21, 2010, 11:56:08 PM Actually, exit polls did ask state-by-state who Perot voters would have backed, and it suggested only Ohio *might* have flipped.
Quote On November 8, 1992—five days after the election—E. J. Dionne penned a first report in the Post. Headline: “Perot Seen Not Affecting Vote Outcome:” Quote DIONNE (11/8/92): Ross Perot's presence on the 1992 presidential ballot did not change the outcome of the election, according to an analysis of the second choices of Perot supporters. The analysis, based on exit polls conducted by Voter Research & Surveys (VRS) for the major news organizations, indicated that in Perot's absence, only Ohio would have have shifted from the Clinton column to the Bush column. This would still have left Clinton with a healthy 349-to-189 majority in the electoral college. And even in Ohio, the hypothetical Bush "margin" without Perot in the race was so small that given the normal margin of error in polls, the state still might have stuck with Clinton absent the Texas billionaire. > http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh062905.shtml Now, to be fair, the dynamics of a race without Perot would have been different, and exit polls are not airtight, particularly when you're looking at sub-groups. But if true, it's surprising. Title: Re: 1992 Election Results if Perot wasn't in and 60% of those votes broke for Bush Post by: Frozen Sky Ever Why on April 22, 2010, 10:56:09 PM Why do people believe Bush could have even competed in WI considering it was a Dukakis state and effected by the recession? Perot was the only reason it was close.
Title: Re: 1992 Election Results if Perot wasn't in and 60% of those votes broke for Bush Post by: Derek on May 03, 2010, 12:36:36 PM http://()
I'm putting this up after I just answered the same question on another forum. If 60% broke for Bush this is how I think it would be based on the percentages of the actual results. However, I really think that 80% of Perot voters would've gone for Bush and he would've been reelected. Title: Re: 1992 Election Results if Perot wasn't in and 60% of those votes broke for Bush Post by: cpeeks on May 03, 2010, 12:52:06 PM I am so sick of republicans putting forth this myth that Perot cost Bush the election. On Oct. 1 when Perot came back in the race the polls stood at Clinton 55% Bush 35% Perot 7%. From the Democratic convention on Clinton consistently led Bush by 20 points, the largest lead got up to 35 points at one time. Get real people Perot took most of his votes from Clinton. Bush was doomed he was not gonna beat Clinton nobody was.
Title: Re: 1992 Election Results if Perot wasn't in and 60% of those votes broke for Bush Post by: Derek on May 03, 2010, 12:58:21 PM I am so sick of republicans putting forth this myth that Perot cost Bush the election. On Oct. 1 when Perot came back in the race the polls stood at Clinton 55% Bush 35% Perot 7%. From the Democratic convention on Clinton consistently led Bush by 20 points, the largest lead got up to 35 points at one time. Get real people Perot took most of his votes from Clinton. Bush was doomed he was not gonna beat Clinton nobody was. If you believe those numbers Title: Re: 1992 Election Results if Perot wasn't in and 60% of those votes broke for Bush Post by: cpeeks on May 03, 2010, 01:12:11 PM Oh get real, do you honestly believe that every major polling appartus in the United States were that far off? Come on, I could understand the argument if they were in the margin of error. Your not even taking into account that 1/3 of voters are democrats, 1/3 third are republicans, and 1/3 are swing voters. So no way the all the Perot voters were hard republicans, they were independents. Quit lying to yourself.
Title: Re: 1992 Election Results if Perot wasn't in and 60% of those votes broke for Bush Post by: Derek on May 04, 2010, 11:20:23 PM I'm not lying to myself or anyone. Obviously the Perot voters weren't happy with Bush Sr. otherwise they would have voted for him. However, Clinton was not viewed favorably at all by the public. He was seen as slick, smooth, and a double talker. I'm not saying it would be a Bush landslide. The election would've been within a couple points and depended on voter turnout like 2004. Bush Jr. wasn't that popular when he was reelected either and still made it to a second term for what it was worth.
Title: Re: 1992 Election Results if Perot wasn't in and 60% of those votes broke for Bush Post by: cpeeks on May 05, 2010, 06:45:10 AM It would have never even been close, would never have been in doubt.
Title: Re: 1992 Election Results if Perot wasn't in and 60% of those votes broke for Bush Post by: Frozen Sky Ever Why on May 05, 2010, 02:25:16 PM Gallup is for the most part crap, and most pollsters outside of Rasmussen are biased towards the Dems. However, the polls were all heavily behind Clinton until Perot came back in. Bush typically polled around 35-38%, Clinton around 53-55%. When Perot came back in, Clinton's numbers fell to around to around 40%, while Bush's stayed the same. Perot clearly hurt Clinton far more than Bush.
What people forget is that though the Republicans blamed Perot after the election and had initially tried to downplay his campaign before he dropped out, the Bush campaign wanted him back in to erode Clinton's support, which is exactly what he did. The quote was something like this: 'Perot's candidacy is important if were going to break even with Clinton.' The GOP was ecstatic to have Perot back in the race. It is believed that Perot cost Bush Ohio, the exit polls indicated it and Bush was ahead there for most of the campaign. Some say Colorado and Montana but I doubt this, since Bush pulled 52 and 53% there respectively in 1988. Clinton was alot more unpopular in the mountain states in 1996 than 1992. Perot almost cost Bush Florida, and probably cost him Georgia, but Clinton was ahead of Bush in New Jersey, New Hampshire and North Carolina. There was no electoral path to victory for Bush without Perot. And to say that it would have been a 2004 election is absurd. Bush could not have got anywhere above 47%, and even that is a reach. He was not liked by either party and was only elected four years previous because of his predecessor and having one of the worst candidates in political history opposing him. Bush got 41% of Reagan Democrats in 1988, I doubt he could of received 20% against Clinton. Title: Re: 1992 Election Results if Perot wasn't in and 60% of those votes broke for Bush Post by: cpeeks on May 05, 2010, 02:42:20 PM Thank god, there's finally someone out there besides me who can add and subtract and can see that Perot almost cost Clinton the race and not the other way around like the republicans want people to believe. Thank you shadow!!! Perot hurt Clinton not Bush!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: 1992 Election Results if Perot wasn't in and 60% of those votes broke for Bush Post by: Derek on May 06, 2010, 12:34:13 PM I would pay to receive data on who Perot voters' second choices would have been. It's something I've never seen. I remember him from the mock elections at school when I was little.
Title: Re: 1992 Election Results if Perot wasn't in and 60% of those votes broke for Bush Post by: Frozen Sky Ever Why on May 06, 2010, 06:55:40 PM I'm not sure where that data is available, all I know is that the reports said that Bush would have one OH in 1992. This is the VA page for 1996, but if you change the state initials at the top you can look at each states results : http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/VAPxp.html
For anyone that doesn't want to look them up I can post them: AL Dole 53 Clinton 42 AK Dole 51 Clinton 40 AZ Clinton 48 Dole 44 AR Clinton 53 Dole 41 CA Clinton 52 Dole 43 CO Clinton 47 Dole 46 CT Clinton 51 Dole 40 DE Clinton 47 Dole 44 DC Clinton 87 Dole 9 FL Clinton 50 Dole 44 GA Dole 49 Clinton 46 HI Clinton 61 Dole 33 ID Dole 57 Clinton 36 IL Clinton 52 Dole 40 IN Dole 48 Clinton 43 IA Clinton 51 Dole 42 KS Dole 55 Clinton 38 KY Dole 47 Clinton 46 LA Clinton 52 Dole 42 ME Clinton 56 Dole 34 MA Clinton 60 Dole 30 MD Clinton 53 Dole 41 MI Clinton 53 Dole 39 MN Clinton 53 Dole 39 MS Dole 53 Clinton 43 MO Clinton 49 Dole 43 MT Dole 46 Clinton 43 NE Dole 55 Clinton 38 NV Dole 46 Clinton 45 NJ Clinton 53 Dole 38 NH Clinton 52 Dole 42 NM Clinton 49 Dole 43 NY Clinton 60 Dole 32 NC Dole 52 Clinton 44 ND Dole 50 Clinton 43 OH Clinton 48 Dole 46 OK Dole 52 Clinton 41 OR Clinton 52 Dole 42 PA Clinton 52 Dole 42 RI Clinton 64 Dole 27 SC Dole 53 Clinton 42 SD Dole 49 Clinton 45 TN Clinton 49 Dole 44 TX Dole 53 Clinton 43 UT Dole 57 Clinton 35 VT Clinton 58 Dole 33 VA Dole 51 Clinton 45 WA Clinton 55 Dole 39 WV Clinton 52 Dole 40 WI Clinton 50 Dole 41 WY Dole 53 Clinton 39 Some of the results don't make sense considering the actual results, but here's the map: () Title: Re: 1992 Election Results if Perot wasn't in and 60% of those votes broke for Bush Post by: cpeeks on May 07, 2010, 06:45:26 AM Ohio still wouldnt have swung the election.
Title: Re: 1992 Election Results if Perot wasn't in and 60% of those votes broke for Bush Post by: Derek on May 07, 2010, 10:17:48 AM That's true. Another thing is what was Bush's approval rating that night?
Title: Re: 1992 Election Results if Perot wasn't in and 60% of those votes broke for Bush Post by: cpeeks on May 07, 2010, 11:50:21 AM I believe around 37%
Title: Re: 1992 Election Results if Perot wasn't in and 60% of those votes broke for Bush Post by: J. J. on May 07, 2010, 05:57:38 PM I think one thing you have to remember is that a lot of voters turned out to vote for Perot. My guess would be about 50% of Perot voters would not have voted in 1992, if he had not been on the ballot.
Title: Re: 1992 Election Results if Perot wasn't in and 60% of those votes broke for Bush Post by: Bo on May 07, 2010, 06:24:15 PM Gallup is for the most part crap Explain, please. Title: Re: 1992 Election Results if Perot wasn't in and 60% of those votes broke for Bush Post by: cpeeks on May 13, 2010, 11:13:07 AM w/e gallop is pretty much dead on
Title: Re: 1992 Election Results if Perot wasn't in and 60% of those votes broke for Bush Post by: Derek on May 13, 2010, 12:03:17 PM 37% is what he got but there are always ppl in your party that you can rely on to vote for you even if they do not approve because they are not willing to vote for someone in the other party for the presidency.
Title: Re: 1992 Election Results if Perot wasn't in and 60% of those votes broke for Bush Post by: Breton Racer on August 06, 2016, 05:37:02 PM Based on all evidence Perot to more from Clinton than Bush.
This is probably the most likely map, Nevada could flip to Bush, as could Georgia. Texas could flip to Clinton. () Title: Re: 1992 Election Results if Perot wasn't in and 60% of those votes broke for Bush Post by: President of the great nation of 🏳️⚧️ on August 06, 2016, 08:31:43 PM Let's say the Bush-Clinton split of Perot votes is completely 60-40, as the title implied. This is the result.
() Governor Bill Clinton (D-AR) / Senator Al Gore (D-TN) - 302/50.57% President George Bush (R-TX) / VP Dan Quayle (R-IN) - 236/48.8% |