Look, LeRoy......I chose Wyoming because it is a conservative state, and would show more obviously the erosion of votes from Bush to Perot vs. Clinton to Perot, and in my view, it did.
I didn't say my analysis was failsafe, but when 20% of Republicans (conservative or not) shift to Perot, and only 5% of Democrats, it DOES mean something.......and the fact that the state ended up going for Bush IS irrelevant to the issue.
Perot appealed to the ultra right because they hated GHW so much. I called them your 'fellow ultras' because of your persistence in arguing against me when I faulted them for what they did in '92.
Anyway, thanks for forcing me to do the research. I knew I was right before, but I'm even more convinced of it now.
I apologize if I mischaracterized you in any way. I've appreciated the politeness of your replies. I wish you God's best as you sort out the mess you have to live with in the state of California. I don't envy you.....
"Clinton won 22 states that Bush had carried in 1988. Among these were some states that Clinton probably won only because of the Perot candidacy. With a total of 40 electoral votes [...] Perot’s vote totals in themselves likely did not cause Clinton to win. Even if all of these states had shifted to Bush and none of Bush’s victories had been reversed (as seems plausible, in fact, as Bush won by less than 5% only in states that a Republican in a close election could expect to carry, particularly before some of the partisan shifts that took place later in the 1990s – Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, South Dakota and Virginia), Clinton still would have won the electoral college vote by 281 to 257." - The Center for Voting and Democracy,
http://www.fairvote.org/plurality/perot.htm"The 1992 presidential election was an analyst's dream. Usually, the presidential candidate runs far ahead of the rest of the ticket. Perot's presence in the presidential race combined with an absence of running mates for lesser offices meant that Clinton and Bush ran behind their respective party's nominees for Governor, Senator and the House. Consequently, it was easy to follow Perot's voters as they voted for other offices. They voted for Democratic and Republican Governor, Senator and House of Representative candidates in sufficient numbers to give them higher vote totals than Clinton and Bush.
"This assumes that all Clinton's supporters voted for the other Democratic candidates and all Bush's supporters voted for the Republican candidates for Governor, Senator and the House. Since Republican candidates for other offices received more votes than Bush, and Democratic candidates for other offices received more votes than Clinton, this is a statistically valid assumption. The higher vote totals for the non-presidential candidates had to come from Perot's voters.
"In the Governor's races, Perot's voters cast 18% of their ballots for the Republican candidates; 56% of their ballots for Democratic candidates, 17% for independent candidates, and 8% did not bother to vote for Governor. If Perot's voters had voted for Bush and Clinton in the same proportion that the voted for the Republican and Democratic candidates for Governor, Clinton's lead would have increased by 7.5 million votes.
"In the Senate races, Perot's supporters voted 27% for the Republican candidates, 24% for the Democratic candidates, 23% for the independent candidates, and 24% skipped the Senate races entirely. (This does not include states that did not have Senate races.)
"In the House races, Perot's voters cast 22% of their ballots for Republican candidates, 19% for Democratic candidates, 18% for independent candidates, and 40% did not vote in House races.
"Perot's voters voted overwhelmingly for Democratic Governor candidates, and only marginally in favor of the Republican candidates for the House and Senate. Perot's voters favored Republican Senate candidates by 2.28%, and Republican House candidates by 2.69%. Because Perot's voters were only 1/5th of the total, that translates into about another 500,000 votes or 0.5% for bush if they had voted in a two way presidential race the same way they voted for the Senate and House. That is about 1/7th of the margin by which Bush lost.
"If Perot cost Bush the election, the proof must lie somewhere else. On a statistical basis, it's essentially impossible to make a case for Perot costing Bush the 1992 presidential election. The election results show that Perot took many voters from Clinton among his supporters who demonstrated a low interest in politics by voting only for President and Governor, while taking marginally from Bush among those who demonstrated more commitment by casting ballots for Congress.
"This analysis can be further confirmed by comparing the 1992 and 1996 results where Perot's vote dropped by 10 million compared to 1992. By comparing the vote totals for Clinton in both years with Bush's and Dole's (assuming Dole voters and Bush voters were the same voters) it is possible to conclude that in 1992 Perot's presence on the ballot cost Bush: Montana, North Carolina, Colorado and Georgia. However, Perot cost Clinton: Florida and Arizona in 1992. So, in 1992, Perot cost Clinton 32 electoral votes while costing Bush 37 electoral votes. Bush lost by 100 electoral votes, so 5 more would not have given him victory."
-
http://www.leinsdorf.com/perot.htm