1992 Presidential Election

[Republican06]

I have been really interested in the 1992 Presidential Election between Bill Clinton, George Bush, and Ross Perot. I was eight when the election took place and I backed George Bush. But it is fasinating that George Bush moved from having 90% approval ratins to being defeated for Re-Election a year later by a unknown governor. What was different in 1992 that caused 19% of Americans to vote for a independent candidate who never before sought Poltical Office. Really the 92 Campaign was the first modern day campaign. You had candidates going on talk shows, and 30  minute infomercial. It was hard fought between the Bush and Clinton and Perot seemed to be bashing Bush as well. My main interest is the fact that Clinton and Al Gore were able to recieve 368 Electoral votes I belive. I dont ever think we will se that majority in the electoral college again and only recieved 43% of the vote. In my opinion Ross Perot elected Bill Clinton as President. Most of Perot's supporters were Republicans. Please share your views on the 92 Campaign. It is fasinating.

[WalterMitty]

clinton would have won even if perot wasnt in the race, granted his margin would have been smaller.

perot tapped into the blue collar angst.  he basically said, 'look at this rotten economy, look at this sky-high deficit, the two parties have failed, let's throw the bums out".  that was his basic message.

perot voters have always been there..even before perot.  they were the blue collars that voted for reagan in 1980.  they were the frustrated white working class who voted wallace in 68.

the perot voters are still there too.  those people are probably more dissatisfied than ever.  the time has never been better for a major third party candidacy.

[Adlai Stevenson]

That may be true but I think people have always claimed they want a third party.  Reagan himself toyed with creating a third party of Southern Democrats and conservative backers of his 1976 bid for the Republican nomination.  Before that, Nixon wanted to run on a coalition of moderates and imagined he could create a third party.  The political climate is so poisonously polarized now I can't see anyone breaking away from either the Republican or Democratic parties.  America needs to elect a moderate capable of drawing support from the other party for there to be a breakdown of this, and that is unlikely to happen. 

Back to the question, I do think it was amazing Clinton/Gore won 368 in the Electoral College with 43% of the vote.  It will be at least until 2012/2016 before a candidate reaches that margin of the electoral vote again.

[Nym90]

Clinton and Gore actually won 370 electoral votes, not 368. You might have been confusing it with the fact that Bush/Quayle got 168 in that election.

[gorkay]

Perot getting 19% of the vote had a lot to do with the perception that Clinton was going to win the election easily. His poll numbers were a lot lower in the last days of the campaign, and it appears that he got a large protest vote. If you compare the election results to the last poll numbers, it would seem that he drew more votes from Clinton than Bush. I don't think many people who truly wanted Bush to win would have cast a protest vote for Perot, as it looked like Bush would need all the votes he could get.

Perot actually led in the polls early that summer, and Clinton was in third place. Then Clinton got a big bump from the Democratic convention, when a lot of voters took a good look at him for the first time and decided they liked him. At the same time, they were starting to figure out that Perot didn't really know what he was doing.