|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 30, 2020, 11:52:58 am
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderators: Torie, ON Progressive)
  1992 Election Results if Perot wasn't in and 60% of those votes broke for Bush
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: 1992 Election Results if Perot wasn't in and 60% of those votes broke for Bush  (Read 20155 times)
21st Century Independent
Rookie
**
Posts: 120


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« 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
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,409
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 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.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,275
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 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.
Logged
Dodger Blue
RosettaStoned
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,030
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: April 04, 2010, 12:21:23 pm »

If Perot did not run, Clinton would still win, but it would be closer.
Logged
Sasquatch
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,077


Political Matrix
E: -8.13, S: -8.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 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?
Logged
DS0816
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,173
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: April 06, 2010, 05:15:43 am »
« Edited: April 06, 2010, 05:20:43 am by DS0816 »

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
Logged
Nichlemn
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,925


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 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.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,275
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 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.
Logged
RJ
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 708
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 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.
Logged
phk
phknrocket1k
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,910


Political Matrix
E: 1.42, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 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.
Logged
Eleden
oaksmarts
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 595


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 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. 
Logged
pragmatic liberal
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 520


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 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
You must be logged in to read this quote.

> http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh062905.shtml[/quote]

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.

Logged
Carapace Clavicle Moundshroud
ShadowOfTheWave
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 7,045
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 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.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,616
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 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.
Logged
cpeeks
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 699
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 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.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,616
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 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
Logged
cpeeks
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 699
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 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.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,616
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 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.
Logged
cpeeks
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 699
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: May 05, 2010, 06:45:10 am »

It would have never even been close, would never have been in doubt.
Logged
Carapace Clavicle Moundshroud
ShadowOfTheWave
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 7,045
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: May 05, 2010, 02:25:16 pm »
« Edited: May 05, 2010, 06:58:11 pm by ShadowOfTheWave »

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.
Logged
cpeeks
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 699
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,616
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 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.
Logged
Carapace Clavicle Moundshroud
ShadowOfTheWave
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 7,045
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 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:

Logged
cpeeks
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 699
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: May 07, 2010, 06:45:26 am »

Ohio still wouldnt have swung the election.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,616
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: May 07, 2010, 10:17:48 am »

That's true. Another thing is what was Bush's approval rating that night?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines