Myths about presidential campaigns and elections that are usually accepted as fact

[Property Representative of the Harold Holt Swimming Centre]

I'll start off with Reagan's "I'm paying for this microphone!" quip at a New Hampshire primary debate in 1980. It's commonly cited as the moment when he saved his campaign (Bush had won Iowa and it was thought that him also winning NH would be a knockout blow). In all likelihood it was actually an earlier debate, in which Reagan gave an articulate performance that included a sharp closing statement (a la the general election debate against Carter) that shifted the ground in New Hampshire. Reagan's internal polling (which showed an immediate overtaking of Bush - who had enjoyed a bounce from Iowa) and views from his campaign team back this up, and he also won NH by nearly 30%, so it's unlikely that the microphone quip in itself won him the primary.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Perot costing Bush the 1992 election is a common Republican cope and almost certainly a false one--polls suggested he took about evenly from both candidates (more from Bush in the South and West from disaffected conservatives, more from Clinton in the Northeast and Great Lakes from protectionist liberals). His 1996 campaign probably did take more from Dole but he wasn't winning that anyway.

[darklordoftech]

That McCain could or would have won in 2008 without Sarah Palin. No Republican could win with that economy.

[TransfemmeGoreVidal]

That Kerry had no chance to win in 2004 because it was wartime when he was actually polling ahead of Bush until the Republican convention and slightly rebounded after he was the clear winner of the first debate many Republicans started to panic. If not for the Bin Laden tape he may even have won.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

Perot costing Bush the 1992 election is a common Republican cope and almost certainly a false one--polls suggested he took about evenly from both candidates (more from Bush in the South and West from disaffected conservatives, more from Clinton in the Northeast and Great Lakes from protectionist liberals). His 1996 campaign probably did take more from Dole but he wasn't winning that anyway.

My contention is that Perot may have cost Bush the election, but not because he took more votes from him. Rather, Perot being in the race changed the dynamics....there were two major candidates attacking the incumbent instead of just one.

[Property Representative of the Harold Holt Swimming Centre]

Dewey was heading for a landslide in 1948 based on the polling.

In fact, Dewey was ahead by only a few percent, and most polling ceased several weeks prior to the election. Dewey himself detected just a few days before the election that it was moving against him.

[Sumner 1868]

The myth is slowly fading out, but conventional wisdom for years was that Mark Penn's strategy for Clinton's 1996 reelection was a stroke of genius, when in reality it just depressed baseline turnout miserably and probably helped downballot Republicans.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Perot costing Bush the 1992 election is a common Republican cope and almost certainly a false one--polls suggested he took about evenly from both candidates (more from Bush in the South and West from disaffected conservatives, more from Clinton in the Northeast and Great Lakes from protectionist liberals). His 1996 campaign probably did take more from Dole but he wasn't winning that anyway.

My contention is that Perot may have cost Bush the election, but not because he took more votes from him. Rather, Perot being in the race changed the dynamics....there were two major candidates attacking the incumbent instead of just one.

Bush wasn't going to win a second term. Clinton (who, to be clear, I have a very dim opinion of) was a brilliant candidate who ran a brilliant campaign and the president wasn't popular.

[Senator Incitatus]

Basically everything about the election of 1876, especially its aftermath.

[E-Dawg]

Basically everything about the election of 1876, especially its aftermath.

What is your position on it? Do you think Hayes stole the election, or that he was the rightful winner with it only being in doubt due to Southern voter suppression?

[Senator Incitatus]

Basically everything about the election of 1876, especially its aftermath.

What is your position on it? Do you think Hayes stole the election, or that he was the rightful winner with it only being in doubt due to Southern voter suppression?

I'm not of the opinion that there is a right or wrong way to win an election. I just think a lot of people have a dramatically simplified version of events; Reconstruction history is insanely complicated and intensely contested, so it's natural that the version of events everyone has is much cleaner than the reality.

[junior chįmp]

Atwaters campaign ads is why Bush won in 1988. Particularly the muh Willie Horton ad. The Willie Horton ad ran on October 5, 1988. By then Bush had been already in the lead in the polls since August

[junior chįmp]

Perot costing Bush the 1992 election is a common Republican cope and almost certainly a false one--polls suggested he took about evenly from both candidates (more from Bush in the South and West from disaffected conservatives, more from Clinton in the Northeast and Great Lakes from protectionist liberals). His 1996 campaign probably did take more from Dole but he wasn't winning that anyway.

A massive exit poll of the 1992 election was commissioned and found that if you took Perot voters and had tem pick Bush or Clinton and then take out the ones that wouldn't of voted....Clinton still wins handily minus Ohio

Ross Perot's presence on the 1992 presidential ballot did not change the outcome of the election, according to an analysis of the second choices of Perot supporters.

The analysis, based on exit polls conducted by Voter Research & Surveys (VRS) for the major news organizations, indicated that in Perot's absence, only Ohio would have have shifted from the Clinton column to the Bush column. This would still have left Clinton with a healthy 349-to-189 majority in the electoral college.

And even in Ohio, the hypothetical Bush "margin" without Perot in the race was so small that given the normal margin of error in polls, the state still might have stuck with Clinton absent the Texas billionaire.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1992/11/08/perot-seen-not-affecting-vote-outcome/27500538-cee8-4f4f-8e7f-f3ee9f2325d1/

Full 105 page exit poll results here

[Sir Mohamed]

I'm unsure whether it's accepted as fact overall, though GOP circles including the Bush family believe the only reason HW lost reelection was Perot. In the overall climate and after he ran for a 4th term of his party, I think HW was always headed for defeat. Clinton still would have won a head-to-head matchup, albeit with a smaller number of EVs.

[Del Tachi]

That 1976 was a poisoned chalice.  Even though the result wasn't ultimately very close, Carter was very capable of winning the 1980 election (and was ahead in the polling for most of that year!)

[SInNYC]

I'm not sure polling is a good way to see what would have happened without Perot in 1992. The campaign changes completely if Perot is out.

Bush won 1988 with a very negative Atwater campaign, but was reluctant to go too negative in 1992 since it would just drive voters to Perot. And Clinton was eminently more smearable than Dukakis - most of the anti-Dukakis smears were silly while accusations against Clinton were at least partly supportable. Without Perot, it would have been much easier to paint Clinton as a womanizing corrupt pol. And his wife would be a radical un-American pro-LGBT (bad back then) first lady (I wont repeat the other rumors that were floating around back then).

[Independents for Nihilism]

And his wife would be a radical un-American pro-LGBT (bad back then) first lady (I wont repeat the other rumors that were floating around back then).

I will:

[SInNYC]

And his wife would be a radical un-American pro-LGBT (bad back then) first lady (I wont repeat the other rumors that were floating around back then).

I will:
<famous alien baby cover snipped>

There were other plausible rumors that normal people would accept.

[President Johnson]

That Biden only beat Trump because of Covid.

[TDAS04]

I don’t know if Mugwump voters were as numerous in the 1884 election as historians seem to suggest. The Democratic popular vote advantage wasn’t very different at all from any of the other 1876-1892 elections, so there shouldn’t have been that many Republicans crossing over in 1884.

Granted, Mugwumps probably did deliver Cleveland the presidency, considering the razor-thin margin in tipping-point state New York.

[Arbitrage1980]

That Biden only beat Trump because of Covid.

No reason to think that Biden would have beaten an incumbent President with a strong economy and no foreign wars. Sure, Trump would have won by a modest margin due to his personal negatives, but without COVID, he wins re-election. Even with COVID/lockdowns/riots, the election came down to 43K votes in GA/AZ/WI combined.

[TML]

People often say that Ralph Nader was the reason Gore lost Florida in 2000 (in terms of vote share, not in terms of legal actions). However, this ignores an important fact that can be gathered from exit polling: Democrats who voted for Bush comprised a greater share of the electorate than Nader voters (12% of Democrats in FL voted for Bush, which was more than double the number of Nader voters), so the Gore campaign could certainly have done a better job with persuasion/organization to boost their chances of winning. Additionally, exit polls also showed that in a two-way race with no other candidates on the ballot, Bush would have won FL 51-49.