Posted on 11/25/2020 2:36:55 PM PST by Beowulf9
The 1992 United States presidential election in Georgia took place on November 3, 1992, and was part of the 1992 United States presidential election. Voters chose 13 representatives, or electors to the Electoral College, who voted for president and vice president.
Georgia was won by Governor Bill Clinton (D-AR). The presidential contest in the Peach State was the closest of any state that year with Clinton winning 43.47% to 42.88% over Incumbent President George H. W. Bush (R) by a razor thin margin of 0.59%.
(Excerpt) Read more at clinton.procon.org ...
The explanation is simple. A recount would have been meaningless since Bush was so far behind in other states.
Flipping Georgia would not have accomplished anything for Bush in 1992 so a recount wasn’t requested.
The best thing that can be said of him is Justice Thomas!
and Perot got money from the Toon..IIRC......
Bush gave away the presidency and Perot helped him....he suckered many into voting for him instead of Bush and thus, 8 yrs of the beginning of the end....8 yrs of anarcho tyranny.....
presidency was given to the Toon....
Bush the Elder was the exact opposite of Reagan. It was that SOB that introduced the NWO. Then his “read my lips” was a flat out betrayal to fiscal conservatives. Perot was seen as more Conservative, albeit a whack a doodle. The hatred for Bush was deep in most conservatives, and 88 was the dawning of the age of the neocon with the Bush election, but by 92 they still did not have complete control of the party. I really dont think fatigue had anything to do with it. Ronnie was still extremely popular and would have won until he died if he could run more.
Ross Perot idiot voters screwed the pooch
That fact makes me laugh every time Hillary whines about the Electoral College. Without it Bill would have lost a national runoff.
Unless we shifted to a parliamentary system (yuck),
read my lips: “traitorous bastard whom I am glad is dead”.
No - Perot took 20 million Republican votes from Bush! 20 million!
As a result, Clinton won with a pathetic 43% plurality - even DuKakis got more than that (46%) in 1988, when he lost to Bush in a 426/112 electoral college landslide.
Bush’s loss in 1992 was 100% thanks to Perot.
“Clinton paid Bush off.”
Nope. More like Bush wanted Clinton in. They were buddies long before that race.
Remember, a lot of this globalist garbage we are living through was set into motion by HW Bush. I think we will be learning a lot more about him and dear old “Bar” in the near future.
I could be wrong, but there are a LOT of people out there making the same claims.
Bush wasn’t Reagan or Trump in the sense of being a real conservative. He had 91 pct approval after Gulf War and spent some of the capital against conservatives..”read my lips” backtrack and NWO. He was a bureaucrat that thought he had it made and got lazy. Of course, also the media piled on incessantly then too although one just saw the news mainly at 530 in the evening. Showing Bush supposedly looking in awe at a checkout scanner, an economy with a dip, looking at his watch etc..., the media cut no slack then either. It was all Billy boy and the fun he was having, and knocking the economy 24 hours per day.
These things also led to Pat Buchanon to challenge President Bush and then Perot stepped in too. If Bush had been conservative or gone full conservative at 91 percent approval then Buchanon and Perot would have stayed home.
I’ve seen claims that Barbara Bush is a daughter of Aleister Crowley. If true, it explains a lot. There is a resemblance.
yep
took way more away from bush than clinton
Thank you, Ross Perot, you began the country’s slippery slide to where we are now. Quicker than a greased hog down a chute.
FACT
Recall the black churches burning nonsense? I have no doubt the Clintons were burning them down.
Blaming Perot is taking the easy way out. Perot drew nearly evenly from Republicans and Democrats. His campaign drew off a lot of voters who would have gone for Clinton if Perot was not running.
What I am thinking is that it’s unconstitutional to require majority for senator because senators originally were appointed by state legislature, but the constitution was amended to demand that senators be popularly elected, but there was no requirement that one candidate reach 50% in the amendment & state law is not dominant here, equal protection is. I don’t see how a presidential candidate is exempt from run-offs if senators are not all so exempted. Courts can call the run off law unconstitutional, if challenged. Now, was the law changed since 1992 or does somebody have to sue to get a run off? Considering how loose the GA election was, courts ought to get involved in how the run off election is conducted if they don’t ban it or ban illegal votes that kept GOP under 50%.
Bush in 1992 suffered a recession caused by Alan Greenspan raising his funds rate to 9.75%, which was more than double the consumer index rate of inflation. Both Perot & Clinton ran on tax increases & socialized medicine , basically. Bush was told that cutting the deficit would drive down interest rates, so he agreed to raise taxes to get Greenspan to slash interest rates at least by half...but Greenspan double crossed Bush. And the Reagan Social Security tax increase kicked in 1990. It was meant to be a counter cyclical tax increase to balance the budget, but Greenspan screwed up a brilliant plan—and the GOP has harmed itself by always wanting to cut spending and taxes since then...never agreeing to any tax or spending increase for any reason. Immigration is a winning issue for the GOP., but taxes and spending hurts them because the FED often controls GROWTH. When the economy crashed in 2008, independents were thinking 2 things: 1) those Bush tax cuts don’t look very pro growth NOW! And 2) they aren’t paying for themselves and look at those deficits. GOP never makes the argument that the FED is the problem, that lower taxes and de regulation lead to more competition and innovation , , leading to lower inflation and interest rates and lower long term unemployment.....and a bigger money supply and rising wages over time without more inflation, so you will get more revenue with lower taxes because more money is being created to support the growth and expansion,,....but only if the Fed accommodates growth and lets prosperit y happen. Bush only raised the top tax rate to 31%, but did not make the tax code any steeper. Greenspan lowered the funds rate late, but by 1993, Bush handed Clinton an economy growing over 4%. ...despite TWO tax increases in 1990. And that 31% rate is what small business owners were paying when they paid 16% payroll tax plus 15% income tax.. Reagan basically put the 28% bracket where the payroll tax phased out, but small business owners paid double payroll tax.
Bill Clinton believed that deficits crowded out private investment and caused inflation, too.......just like Eisenhower.....but high taxes and regulation do the same thing. And when Clinton cut the capital gains tax ( he should have cut the corporate income tax to 10%), that’s when private investment really took off, but it wasn’t really fair, because he never gave the middle class tax cut her promised—which a corporate income tax cut would have been.
Greenspan RAISED his funds rate all the way to 6.5% in 2000, despite a booming economy & bigger and bigger budget SURPLUSES paying off the national debt. Greenspan claimed the economy was growing too fast and the national debt was being paid off too fast. Greenspan BROKE THE LAW which mandates the Fed to maintain MAXIMUM employment, not some fiction called “full employment”...Greenspan said he was raising the funds rate to get long term rates to rise......but long term rates are tied to inflation and raising the funds rate causes inflation to FALL not rise.
In 2006, Bernanke—-whose Fed put the brakes on the entire Bush recovery by raising its funds rate over 400% from 2004-2006 for the public ally stated goal of “slowing the economy THROUGH THE HOUSING SECTOR to keep WAGES from rising.....(ie take the side of the buyers of labor over the sellers of labor)—-ie keep demand for labor lower than the supply of labor at a given price.
Bush did not lose because he raised taxes. Rumors spread that Bush was sick and wouldn’t live through a 2nd term.....and he stuck with Dan Quayle who was only one heartbeat away from the presidency...with Perot splitting the vote over NAFTA...which was the beginnings of a North American UNION, not a free trade agreement. McCain openly said we needed the NAFTA union because Europe was forming a union....forgetting that the USA already was a 50 state union......and the EU was trying to be more Ike US!. NAFTA was a mistake. WE SHOULD HAVE sought a trade, monetary and military alliance with the EU....crushed Russia into an ash heap. Bush ran late and weak. He didn’t explain what Greenspan did. He LOOKED sick and tired. Clinton looked young and energetic...disguised being a slick con man. Perot was probably the best candidate that year...wanting a 50 cent gas tax increase to balance the budget and take an honest look at what government could do for healthcare in addition to Medicare and Medicaid. Perot split the vote and won most of the independents.
Perot elected Clinton, although his defenders here still deny it. The networks also immediately called Georgia for Clinton.
There’s nothing in the constitution about runoff elections for President.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.