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.
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.
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.
