Those are two pretty wild statements. Do you have any figures to suggest that the Jewish vote for Republicans was measurably reduced in 1992 and thereafter? It wasn't that large in 1988, but you are saying that it plummeted from those figures. Did it?
As for Buchanan contributing to Clinton being elected? That is pure nonsense. Clinton's major asset is his insinuating boyish delivery and manner, that has a very strong appeal to women. It has nothing to do with what he is actually saying, or what others are saying about him. If you understand why Hollywood has succeeded in promoting Leftist values over the past two generations, you understand the Clinton phenomenon.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
I also challenge, that Clinton won, not because of Buchanan, but because of the economy.. The economy was in a funk in 1992 and hadn't started to find it's feet yet.
Economy wins and loses elections.
The recovery was slowed by Bush 41's lack of fortitude to push a conservative economic agenda during his 4 years in office. He dug his own grave with "Read My Lips". He had no credibility left with the public.
History shows that when an incumbent President faces a serious challenge for the nomination from within his own party, he loses. Being forced to run a campaign to be re-nominated drains resources from those that would otherwise be spent running for re-election in the general campaign. In many ways it neutralizes many of the inherent advantages that incumbency offers. The fact that Buchanan challenged Bush for the Republican nomination contributed to Bush's defeat in 1992.
Actually the biggest factor in Clinton getting elected, by FAR, was Perot. Look at the low pluralities he won in state after state and in the nationwide popular vote. Without the big-eared dummy it would have been a very close election and Bush1 might well have prevailed saving us from years of Xlintonism.