1992 had Perot not run

[RRusso1982]

In 1992, Ross Perot decides at the last minute not to run. Here is how the electoral map would have looked.  I went state by state and took the Perot vote.  I gave two thirds of the perot vote to bush and a third to Clinton.  Here is how the map would have looked

Popular Vote
Bush/Quaye- 50%
Clinton/Gore- 49.3%

[Scam of God]

I gave two thirds of the perot vote to bush and a third to Clinton.

There's your first mistake.

[RRusso1982]

how was it a mistake

[hcallega]

Most polls showed that Perot voters were evenly divided in voting for Clinton in 1996. Also, not that many were conservative and many were very frustrated at the state of the GOP, but didn't want to vote for Clinton. Clinton would have benefited in the north and south, while bush would have benefited out west (tradition of 3rd party candidates), so here is what i would have instead:

[Robespierre's Jaw]

I gave two thirds of the perot vote to bush and a third to Clinton.

There's your first mistake.

Agreed. I believe a vast majority of polling stated that Perot supporters were evenly divided between President Bush and Governor Clinton, if their candidate, that being Perot wasn't seeking the Presidency of the United States in 1992.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Also, people tend to pay too much attention to the margins in 1992, with some of the states just being close because of Perot. Does anyone seriously believe Bush could have won any Dukakis states in a two-way race in 92? Why do people continually put that crap into these scenarios?

[Mr.Phips]

It seems that Perot hurt Bush in the South, Midwest, and Mountain West and hurt Clinton in the Northeast, making states like Connecticut and New Jersey close and holding Clinton to around 50% in New York, Massachussets and Maryland. 

[hcallega]

Yeah, states like Montana and Georgia are the two most obvious Perot flips, while many Northeastern states are creepily close.

[Mr.Phips]

Yeah, states like Montana and Georgia are the two most obvious Perot flips, while many Northeastern states are creepily close.

Ohio too would have likely gone to Bush without Perot.  I recall seeing that Bush was the second choice of Perot voters there. 

[pragmatic liberal]

The VNS exit poll actually found that, aside from Perot voters nationally splitting evenly for Clinton and Bush, according to their state-by-state exit polls, only Ohio would (possibly) have flipped to Bush.

> http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh062905.shtml

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course, this doesn't account for the fact that a Perot-less race would have somewhat different dynamics. But Bush winning reelection was fairly unlikely: remember that in '92, his approval ratings were in the '30s -- those aren't numbers that get an incumbent president elected.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

[RosettaStoned]

Perot did not hand the election to Clinton.

[Nixon in '80]

As much as it pains me to say it, the only man who cost George Bush a second term was George Bush.

[hcallega]

So Ohio flips, but I find it hard to believe that Perot voters in Montana were naturally going to go for Clinton. While it is probably the most Democratic of the mountain west states, it also has a lot of progressive republicans.

[LanceMcSteel]

Polls in September 1992 had Clinton ahead of Bush by around 55%-38% and he would have cruised to election, probably winning Texas, VA,NC,AL,MS etc. Only when Perot came back into the race did Clinton's numbers collapse. Perot causing Clinton to win is a myth perpetuated by the right wing noise machine to discredit Clinton.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Polls in September 1992 had Clinton ahead of Bush by around 55%-38% and he would have cruised to election, probably winning Texas, VA,NC,AL,MS etc. Only when Perot came back into the race did Clinton's numbers collapse. Perot causing Clinton to win is a myth perpetuated by the right wing noise machine to discredit Clinton.

How the hell could Clinton have won those states in a two-way race with Bush when Dole when them in 96, after Perot's numbers collapsed 11%?

[bhouston79]

Electoral Vote

Clinton  345
Bush     193

Popular Vote
Clinton  52.2
Bush     47.1

And this is probably being kind to Bush.  Contrary to popular right wing belief, Perot did not cost Clinton the election.  Bush I was a vulnerable, unpopular incumbant who was destined to lose.