Why was there a third-party surge in 1992?

[twenty42]

Ross Perot won almost 20% of the PV in 1992. It was an historic showing for a third-party candidate, eclipsed only by TR's 27.4% in 1912.

While most significant showings by third parties have historically been caused by schisms within one of the major parties (e.g. 1892, 1912, 1924, 1968), what I find interesting about 1992 is that Perot seemed to pull from both sides and really didn't have a demonstrable base on either side. From the data I've compiled on the election, Perot won 14% of Democrats, 21% of Republicans, and 30% of independents. This provided him with a unique cross-section of the vote, one which was very broad across the country but terribly inefficient in the electoral college.

What was it about the 1992 election that created such favorable conditions for a third-party to emerge? Was there a deep dissatisfaction with both parties and their nominees? The candidates of 2016 were historically unpopular, but third-party vote was only about 6% in that election...less than a third of Perot's 1992 total. Did Perot simply galvanize a large number of voters who would've stayed home in a typical bipartisan election? I'd say that's unlikely.

I've also always found it fascinating how good and bad Perot's campaign was at the same time. While attaining 19% of the vote as a third-party is absolutely remarkable, his inability to attain even a single electoral vote rendered his run pretty pointless. We know now that Perot's best performances mostly came from deep red and deep blue states, but this to me speaks of poor strategy. IMO, Perot's run would've been more effective had he focused on a winning a few states rather than running a broad national campaign.

[IceSpear]

People had Republican fatigue and Bush Sr. was unpopular, but the 80s Conservative Consensus was still very much in place, and people weren't sure about Clinton due to his scandals. It was also much less polarized in the 90s. Additionally, unlike many third party candidates, Perot had money, name recognition, and made the debate stage. He was also seen as a real contender to win at points, so there was less concern about "wasting your vote."

[Hydera]

Also if you read Ross Perots platform whether its ontheissues or his wiki page. His campaign had a lot of stances that werent really coherent ideologically which allowed him to capture a broad swath of voters. especially republican voters by campaigning on HW Bush's breaking his pledge of no new taxes when he signed a democratic plan to deal with rising deficits after the 1990 recession and years of tax cuts. For a lot of republicans he was the safer choice than voting for Clinton because he wasnt a democrat and was a self made billionaire. Additionally he got votes from working class and left leaners for his strong stance on NAFTA which when Clinton signaled he wasnt going to act strongly on rescinding made a lot of people upset. Also one reason for his rise was the 1990-1991 recession compared with lots of people being upset over the two party system. All of these factors and the ones mentioned made him get a significant amount of votes.

[darklordoftech]

I think Perot appealed to people who supported Pat Buchanan and felt that Clinton and HW were equally compicit in the "giant sucking sound".

[SingingAnalyst]

I think Perot appealed to people who supported Pat Buchanan and felt that Clinton and HW were equally compicit in the "giant sucking sound".

This, plus the fact that Clinton was not trusted (the April 20, 1992 Time Magazine cover admits as much, and was used in a Bush ad). Bush was very unpopular and was seen as a "do-nothing" President in the face of a recession (though his popularity had reached the high 80s early in 1991 during the Gulf War).

Plus, Congress was seen as part of the problem, and a leader who could "shake up Washington" was sought after. Many remarks were made to the effect that 99% of Congress was re-elected in 1988, and that the same party had controlled the House for 38 years; term limits were popular (a term limit proposal passed in MI in 1992).

Clinton's lack of perceived trustworthiness dogged him well into his first term, and was a factor in the 1994 GOP takeover of Congress; Clinton's poll numbers were low (by pre-Trump standards) until the April 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, whereupon they jumped several points and kept rising.

[Hydera]

I think Perot appealed to people who supported Pat Buchanan and felt that Clinton and HW were equally compicit in the "giant sucking sound".

This, plus the fact that Clinton was not trusted (the April 20, 1992 Time Magazine cover admits as much, and was used in a Bush ad). Bush was very unpopular and was seen as a "do-nothing" President in the face of a recession (though his popularity had reached the high 80s early in 1991 during the Gulf War).

Plus, Congress was seen as part of the problem, and a leader who could "shake up Washington" was sought after. Many remarks were made to the effect that 99% of Congress was re-elected in 1988, and that the same party had controlled the House for 38 years; term limits were popular (a term limit proposal passed in MI in 1992).

Clinton's lack of perceived trustworthiness dogged him well into his first term, and was a factor in the 1994 GOP takeover of Congress; Clinton's poll numbers were low (by pre-Trump standards) until the April 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, whereupon they jumped several points and kept rising.

Along with the debacle over Gennifer Flowers and other sexual harassment allegations and claims. Bill had a lot of charisma and the recession and the low approvals of HW Bush saved him from what have well been a lost. But had he didnt have such a libido he probably would had won 1992 by a even bigger electoral and vote margin.

[Burke859]

People today forget just how much Americans didn't trust the Democrats to hold the presidency again circa 1992.  The Dems had lost three straight elections, and states like New Jersey and California still voted Republican because the voters in those states assumed that Democrats would raise their taxes and destroy the economy if elected.  In one of the Naked Gun movies, Leslie Nielsen's character quipped, "Why can't the Democrats put up anyone worth voting for?"  It was an inside joke demonstrating that LA/NYC liberals wanted a Democratic president but that they thought the Democratic Party was floundering at actually being able to put together a solid presidential campaign.

But at the same time, the country was blaming Reagan/Bush for the recession and the deficit, and Baker/Dole establishment Republicanism didn't seem like the answer either.  So when Perot rode in with "centrist populism," it gave Americans a third way that seemed somewhat interesting, without having to choose between stale Reaganism, boring Dole-ism, or radical Dukakis-ism.

When Perot flamed out, Clinton was able to sell a sort of suburban-friendly version of liberalism as the new third way, and win the election.  Not sure if another Democrat would have been able to do the same.  Clinton was the ideal sort of opportunist to somehow manage to piggyback on Perot's voters to a win.

[SingingAnalyst]

People today forget just how much Americans didn't trust the Democrats to hold the presidency again circa 1992.  The Dems had lost three straight elections, and states like New Jersey and California still voted Republican because the voters in those states assumed that Democrats would raise their taxes and destroy the economy if elected.  In one of the Naked Gun movies, Leslie Nielsen's character quipped, "Why can't the Democrats put up anyone worth voting for?"  It was an inside joke demonstrating that LA/NYC liberals wanted a Democratic president but that they thought the Democratic Party was floundering at actually being able to put together a solid presidential campaign.

But at the same time, the country was blaming Reagan/Bush for the recession and the deficit, and Baker/Dole establishment Republicanism didn't seem like the answer either.  So when Perot rode in with "centrist populism," it gave Americans a third way that seemed somewhat interesting, without having to choose between stale Reaganism, boring Dole-ism, or radical Dukakis-ism.

When Perot flamed out, Clinton was able to sell a sort of suburban-friendly version of liberalism as the new third way, and win the election.  Not sure if another Democrat would have been able to do the same.  Clinton was the ideal sort of opportunist to somehow manage to piggyback on Perot's voters to a win.

I consider Bill Clinton to be perhaps the most politically gifted American politician of my lifetime, not even merely my living memory.

On a 1992 episode of the Tonight Show, at the time of Perot's maximum popularity (before Perot temporarily dropped out), Jay Leno (who had just replaced retiring Johnny Carson) pointed out that, if the election were held that day, Clinton would only carry his home state of Arkansas. He then quipped "Clinton appears to be a typical Democrat after all."

[darklordoftech]

Clinton's poll numbers were low (by pre-Trump standards) until the April 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, whereupon they jumped several points and kept rising.

Why did the OC bombing boost Clinton's poll numbers?

[Hydera]

Clinton's poll numbers were low (by pre-Trump standards) until the April 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, whereupon they jumped several points and kept rising.

Why did the OC bombing boost Clinton's poll numbers?

Before OC his approvals were mostly underwater. But after OC the positive response to his handling of OC and the media spotlight on the growing extreme-right talk show radio and militia movement made people trust Bill Clinton as President. Prior to that Bill Clinton failed in his initiative to pass a Canadian style universal healthcare reform due to public opinion turning negative because of attacks.  And democrats especially progressives showed disapproval.  His approvals went back underwater but no longer under 43%.  

Around week 140 there was a GOP led shutdown for five days and the quick resolution made his approval rebound. Then after the second shutdown that lasted for two weeks and ended around early Jan. When republicans tried to shutdown the government to get him to sign spending and tax cuts which was a GOP platform in the 1994 midterms and he refused, His approval from Democrats went from a 70's range which is bad since their the same party to the 80's. Along with his approval from moderate republicans and independents going up. Then combined with the economy going so smooth he never went under 50% in his 2nd term.


https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/GALLERY/12834_24_01_18_10_45_55.png

http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/2_zo73mwmeuxtintro9noq.gif


Basically campaigning on reforming government in both left and right ways(on the left with universal healthcare and tax increases and on the right with a stronger crime policy) .he changed his image towards a good caretaker of the economy and the country after OC. Helped by the economy and the republican misstep with the two shutdowns.