What’s true? You didn’t prove anything - and the burden of proof is on you, not me.
What did the Perot and Clinton agendas have in common that would make you think they were competing for the same votes?
The answer is - nothing. Bush and Perot were competing for pro-business votes - lower tax lower regulation - like any Democrat, Clinton was kissing up to labor unions and special interests - and like any Democrat - he had those voter blocks all to himself.
Alright it’s time to explain the core mathematics of American politics to you guys. I warn you, if you pay attention and really UNDERSTAND what I’m going to explain to you American politics will become very boring to you.
So basically the American voting public is divided into roughly 3rds. The specific numbers vary from year to year, but they always stay in throwing distance of 33% of each. Roughly 1/3 of the voters align with the Republicans, 1/3 with the Democrats, and the final 3rd (which I first saw labeled the Mushy Middle) are the people that really decide elections, and they cycle like the tides. The Mushy Middle gradually get more and more tired of one side the longer they’re in power, which puts the other side in power, and then they get tired of them. This is why for most of the last 150 years or so we run this lather rinse repeat in our elections. R gets 2 terms, D gets 2 terms, R, D, R, D. Yeah we get the occassional break in pattern, like Bush getting the Rs a 3rd term, or Trump’s 1. But by and large this is the cycle.
So let’s look at the 92 election:
Bush 36%
Clinton 43%
Perot 19%
Now compare those to our standard divide: 33, 33, 33. That 33% is the only vote any D or R candidate can count on. If there’s a pool that is actually THEIR vote, that’s it.
So Bush’s 36% shows that he got a tiny chunk of the Mushy Middle (10% of the 3rd or 3% overall).
While Clinton got about 1/3 of the Mushy Middle, 10% of the overall vote, in addition to “his” 33%.
And the lion’s share of the Mushy Middle went to Perot.
Now sure these are broad generalizations, as always there’s cross over votes, some Rs vote D, some Ds vote R, blah blah. But they’re usually a small number and wash out. The bulk is what matters. And bulk of it is that Bush drew basically nothing from the Mushy Middle who actually decide elections. And thinking that without Perot he would have gotten ALL the Mushy Middle flies in the face of American electoral history. They get tired of the side in charge. Best case scenario for Bush is a 50 50 split of Perot’s 19% if Perot isn’t on the ballot. Actually probably it splits in 3rds, 1 third to each Bush and Clinton and the other 3rd not voting, so it looks like a 50 50 split but the total vote count would drop.
More than like without Perot the Mushy Middle split the way part of them already did. 3 to 1 for Clinton. It was the 3th time around for an R, he wasn’t gonna win. Especially with that pathetic campaign. Bush got all “his” votes. He lost cause he got basically none of the Mushy Middle. And that’s who decided elections.