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

[Scam of God]

Here was a man who succeeded the widely popular Ronald Reagan, saw the final collapse of Communism in his term, and prosecuted a successful and publicly-supported war in Iraq. Other Presidents have been re-elected facing greater economic difficulty; he ought to have been able to have won on a campaign of his "accomplishments" alone.

(Of course I'd have hated Bush and would have voted for Perot. Still.)

[Dr. Cynic]

I will quote Bill Clinton...

"It's the economy, stupid."

Oh and... There were new taxes... Bush was also not the most sympathetic or charismatic man.

During one of the debates, a woman asked him how he could identify with those hit by the recession and his answer was rather stumbling while Clinton did what he was always so good at. I think that was the point where Clinton truly put it in the bag.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Perot should have won. Bush 41 sucked. Clinton and Perot were much better. That's why he lost.

[Scam of God]

I will quote Bill Clinton...

"It's the economy, stupid."

But as I said, other Presidents have been re-elected (or elected out of the same Party as their predecessor) during times of economic downturn. See also: Martin van Buren, Millard Fillmore, James Buchanan, Chester Alan Arthur, Harry S. Truman, and George W. Bush. George H.W. Bush himself followed Reagan during a drought that struck the Midwestern states and the late 80s recession. And Bush the First had more accomplishments to his name than most of these.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

1. Economic recession which made him appear out of touch.

2. Raised taxes violating a direct clear promise to the contrary.

3. Un charismatic facing a very charismatic opponent.

[Sewer]

Chester Alan Arthur

was not elected.

[Scam of God]

Chester Alan Arthur

was not elected.

Point. Still, it's not as if economic problems render a sitting President eminently unpopular, as Chet was well-regarded throughout the country.

[Dr. Cynic]

But as I said, other Presidents have been re-elected (or elected out of the same Party as their predecessor) during times of economic downturn. See also: Martin van Buren, Millard Fillmore, James Buchanan, Chester Alan Arthur, Harry S. Truman, and George W. Bush. George H.W. Bush himself followed Reagan during a drought that struck the Midwestern states and the late 80s recession. And Bush the First had more accomplishments to his name than most of these.

The panic of 1837 started after Van Buren's election and he was kicked out. Fillmore, a Whig, was never elected and a Democrat, Franklin Pierce succeeded him. Buchanan was seen as a moderate statesman opposed to the "crazy, abolitionist" Republicans. Arthur was already explained. Truman managed to blame the Congress... Dubya... Well, I won't go into that one... The rest of my explanation was below.

[Reaganfan]

While obvious factors included the economy, I think Bush could have had a much better re-election campaign, similar to that of his son's re-election campaign in 2004 which of course proved successful.

Remember, 1992 was a year where many things were changing not just politically but also in culture. When Bush ran in 1988, America was still in the era of "Yuppie 1980s" and "Reaganomics", and the Cold War, while not as dangerous as in the 1981-1983 era, was also still going on. By 1992, nuclear war was fictional to many, the era of the 1980s was over with everything from the rise of rap music overtaking 80s rock to Carson's retirement from the Tonight Show (1962-1992). It seems as though America was moving towards the left, and towards a more diverse and youthful culture which Clinton clearly exemplified. This seems in contrast to the 2000 election when America was trending more towards the 80s ideals and laid back, Conservative approaches. (See: Governor George W. Bush)

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Ross Perot.

[sg0508]

1) Economy just came out of a recession and 1991 and the recovery wasn't in swing yet (didn't start until post 1994 until Clinton).

2) Raised taxes and thus a lot of the GOP base

3) Perot cost him several states (OH, CO, MT, NH, NJ, etc)

4) Pat Buchanan's Culture War speed further alienated moderates

5) Clinton ran a good campaign.

[Mr.Phips]

1) Economy just came out of a recession and 1991 and the recovery wasn't in swing yet (didn't start until post 1994 until Clinton).

The recovery went into full swing around December 1993. 

[cannonia]

READ MY LIPS: NO NEW TAXES

[CJK]

1) Economy just came out of a recession and 1991 and the recovery wasn't in swing yet (didn't start until post 1994 until Clinton).

The recovery went into full swing around December 1993. 

In late 1992 strong GDP growth resumed and the unemployment rate was declining. The only problem was that people had already made up their minds that the economy was bad a long time ago.

[rebeltarian]

1. Ross Perot
2. Bill Clinton was as solid as a Demcratic candidate could come.
3. Bush 41 was kinda lame.  I probably still would have voted for him if I was old enough at the time, tho.

[jokerman]

1) Economy just came out of a recession and 1991 and the recovery wasn't in swing yet (didn't start until post 1994 until Clinton).

The recovery went into full swing around December 1993. 

In late 1992 strong GDP growth resumed and the unemployment rate was declining. The only problem was that people had already made up their minds that the economy was bad a long time ago.

Unemployment was declining, but barely.  It peaked in late summer and barely decline from then till November.  The people were still feeling the recession through the main campaign season.

[Derek]

1. Read my lips no new taxes.
2. Ross Perot
3. Not removing Saddam

[cpeeks]

two words: James Carville

[cpeeks]

Ross Perot and Saddam had nothing to do with it.

[useful idiot]

Ross Perot and Saddam had nothing to do with it.

Saddam might not have, but you can't say Ross Perot didn't. Even if he drew from both sides, the vast majority of his criticism was directed at Bush, not Clinton. Hell, he practically endorsed Clinton by dropping out the first time. Bush getting slammed from both sides had a horrible effect on his campaign.

[cpeeks]

On Oct 1 when Perot re -entered the race the polls stood at Clinton 55%-Bush 45%- Perot 7%, when it ended it 43%-38%-19%. You do the math without Perot  in the race Clinton wins in one of the largest popular, and electoral votes in U.S. history

[Bo]

He raised taxes despite promising not to, the economy was in poor shape, national security became much less of an issue after the end of the Cold War, and also Bush Sr. had no charisma.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Ross Perot.

[cpeeks]

Ross Perot votes came from Clinton, the republicans love to push the myth that Perot voters came from Bush. Clinton would have beat Bush by 20 + points without Perot in the race. Quit kidding yourself, the people wanted change.

[Tuck!]

On Oct 1 when Perot re -entered the race the polls stood at Clinton 55%-Bush 45%- Perot 7%, when it ended it 43%-38%-19%. You do the math without Perot  in the race Clinton wins in one of the largest popular, and electoral votes in U.S. history

55+45+7=107

Am I missing something here?