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

[cpeeks]

Ya my bad thanks for pointing that out the polls numbers stood at Clinton 55% Bush 35% Perot 7%

[Mr. Morden]

the economy was in poor shape

This is the main reason.  Everything else was a sideshow.

Of course, interestingly, economic growth had already picked up by the time of the election.  But unemployment was still high, and that's what really matters electorally.

[cpeeks]

Yea like Carville had posted in the war room "It's the economy, stupid."

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Bush haven't removed Saddam and still had astronomic approvals after Gulf War. But effect haven't lasted. With his removal, effect wouldn't last long too, it';s even more possible the occupation would be troubling from very begining and hurt Bush even more.

No, Saddam would be still non-issue.

Beside, Bush never considered this.

[cpeeks]

Your  right removing Saddam would have hurt him especially if it developed into the quagmire that it is right now.

[rbt48]

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.

Really?  20 + points?  Then, how does Clinton only beat Dole by 8.5% in 1996?  Even if you give Clinton every single Perot vote in 1996, he only wins by 16.9%. 

It is just not accurate to assume that all the Perot votes would have gone to Clinton in either '92 or'96.

[cpeeks]

Just look at the numbers, most Perot voters went to Clinton, geez you dont have to have a degree in math to see Clinton went from in the mid 50's to low 40's and Perot went from 7 to 19 Bush's numbers didnt change, to figure out where the Perot voters came from, and I never said all the Perot voters came from Clinton just the vast majority of them did. People were ready for a change I remeber that election and the excitement Clinton/Gore generated. As far as 1996 goes Im not sure how the Perot vote figured into it, but it proabably split somewhere down the middle.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

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.

*FACEPALM*

[cpeeks]

Lol w/e, and Bush SR. was anything BUT a conservative!!!!

[Derek]

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

Yea those polls are possible if you poll 80% democrats. Find what percentage of them were registered as democrats.

[Derek]

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.

Really?  20 + points?  Then, how does Clinton only beat Dole by 8.5% in 1996?  Even if you give Clinton every single Perot vote in 1996, he only wins by 16.9%. 

It is just not accurate to assume that all the Perot votes would have gone to Clinton in either '92 or'96.

Agreed, that's faulty polling and voodoo calculations.

[Derek]

It's this simple, America wanted a draft dodger as their president instead of a WWII hero. We became soft and weak and as a result we were attacked on 9/11 despite signs that security needed to be stepped up. We saw the WTC bombing in 1993, intelligence failure with the Oklahoma City bombing, the bombings of our embassy in Africa in 1998, and of course the USS Cole. Hope you enjoyed having a good economy. Btw, how's your economy today as a result?

[cpeeks]

Oh get real. Republicans just stand it that Bush Sr. didnt a have a prayer against Clinton. After May of that year Bush never led again, and every one of those polls showed the same thing Clinton trouncing Bush, but I am sure only democrats got polled right? This reminds me of a kid's arguement. Regardless of any of this it comes down to one thing: Clinton won, Bush lost get over it.

[cpeeks]

My economy is horrible because of W getting us involved in two un-just wars and I should know he sent me to those god forsaken places.

[Derek]

I'm not sure what the economy after 2 Bush terms has to do with this forum. It would have been very interesting had Perot not reentered the race.

[useful idiot]

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

That means nothing. Besides, those poll numbers equal 107%....

[Badger]

It's this simple, America wanted a draft dodger as their president instead of a WWII hero. We became soft and weak and as a result we were attacked on 9/11 despite signs that security needed to be stepped up. We saw the WTC bombing in 1993, intelligence failure with the Oklahoma City bombing, the bombings of our embassy in Africa in 1998, and of course the USS Cole. Hope you enjoyed having a good economy. Btw, how's your economy today as a result?

As a result of what? Or whom? If you asked that question anytime in the mid to late 90's the answer probably would've been "pretty good, thank you". The transformation of the budget from the largest deficits in history to the largest surpluses was nice too. Utter coincidental I know. After all, we all know the government's budget is controlled by all other forces than, you know, actual fiscal policy. It was likewise pure coincidence that when W. got in and re-instituted the same irresponsible math defying policies that the budget deficit not only reappeared but exploded to new record levels.

As far as the economy now? Pretty lousy, but showing signs of recovery. Ergo I will support no candidate who doesn't oppose the warmed over "tax and borrow" Reaganomics that both Bushes fervently pursued. This, again coincidentally, excludes about 99% of Republican congressional candidates.

Oh, why do I let this obvious troll get to me?

[Badger]

you obviously cant count 43+38=81+19=100 lol ur name surely fits you idiot

I believe he was referring to your acknowledged error of listing the Perot reentry polls at 55-45-7.

BTW:  You're a vet, cpeeks? It's probably been years since you returned from deployment, but thank you for your service and welcome home!

[Bo]

Lol w/e, and Bush SR. was anything BUT a conservative!!!!

How was Bush Sr. NOT conservative as President?

[cpeeks]

Raised taxes, extension of the civil rights bill, increases in welfare, clean air act, immigration act of 1990, support of abortion rights, spearheaded nafta.....would you like for me to continue?lol

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I may also add the GOP left H W. not the other way around and the Dan Quayle debacle didn't go so well after those debates, he was simply a poor debator with Gore and VP of Perot.

[cpeeks]

Yea the Buchanan challenge was very evident of that, but  I am not sure Quayle hurt him, people dont vote for the veep, and he was a darling of the right.

[Derek]

yea VP doesn't make much difference by election day. It's not even a top 25 issue.

[cpeeks]

They never do I am still not sure why people think that. If that was the case Dukakis would have beat Bush in 1988, Bentson was one of the best vepp choices ever, in fact he should have headed the ticket, he probably would have beat Bush.

[Derek]

He might have I guess it depends on whether or not you want a potato or a potatoe lol. That gaffe was played for 3 weeks while Joe Biden's were covered up. Regardless, Quayle kind of seems like he would've been frustrating for Bush during those 4 years the same as a young child would upset his grandpa.