That election probably opened my eyes to the oblivion the Republican party was headed for. That year Bush waged a real campaign for about six weeks. And realizing the glitz the media was going to heap on Clinton, that just wasn’t enough. Clinton was out there bashing him. Perot was out there bashing him. And good old George remained above it all.
Day after day I asked myself, “When is this guy going to start acting like he wants another term.”
I think he was convinced that when push came to shove, people would admire his handling of the war, and vote him back in. As his poll numbers seemed to slide, it didn’t register with him that he might be in trouble.
The media fronted for Clinton. Everyone from Johnny Carson to Sixty-Minutes to the major networks and newspapers and magazines, heralded the brilliance of this high school level clown. Of course Clinton had done nothing up to this point, that anyone could point to and say, “Look at that! Isn’t he grand.”
He played the sax for a few minutes on Carson and he was all the rage. His most notable event before that was putting the audience at the previous Democrat convention, and the public who bothered watch, to sleep. He was a buffoon. It was pretty much universally accepted, he was.
Then the media went to work, and by golly, he was simply brilliant. If so, why was his state at 49th or 50th position on almost every category? Well, the media didn’t ask that question. Remember folks, he’s BRILLIANT! He’s a breath of fresh air. He’s young. Oh he has a young daughter. His wife is a brilliant attorney. Why it’s going to be a co-presidency made in heaven. Well no, hell perhaps, but not heaven.
Bill Clinton was the smart ass high school cut-up in class, the guy that wouldn’t amount to much and go on to work at the local Dairy Queen or filling station. Of course, in the Democrat model, that’s just the type of guy you want leading the free world.
Fulbright put him in his youth program. Clinton got to visit the White House and meet JFK. Then it was off to the races as this jackass grifted his way to stardom.
I’m sure you know all this. It frustrated me. In Barack Obama we have another know-nothing, destined for stardom despite his associations, his ignorance, and anti-U.S. stance.
One guy sold his soul to the Chinese and the other to just about everyone else, except the U.S. and it’s citizens.
Perot was a tool. As much as anything, I think he helped sell the American public on the idea that Bush was a hapless idiot.
In the end Clinton got 43% of the vote, Bush got 37.4%, and Perot got 18.9%. You may be able to look at key races and come to the conclusion Bush was destined to lose w/wo Perot. I don’t look at it that way. It’s an academic discussion at this point of course.
To my way of thinking, Clinton got his 40% + 3. Bush failed to get his 40% by 2.6. But who did that 18.9% represent? Where did those votes come from?
Perot was seen by those who supported him as a straight shooter. He was a guy that was going to take a fresh honest look at things, and get our house back in order. I didn’t totally buy off on it, but he did have his appeal. It was an appeal that I saw as at least 75/25 a Conservative appeal.
His poll numbers were in the 30% range just before his psychotic episode. He was in/out/in, and he still drew 18.9% of the vote. There were some hungry people out there. Neither Clinton or Bush appealed to them as much as Perot. I don’t think more than a couple of percent of those folks thought Perot was the next big Liberal. If anything, they thought he was going to be fiscally responsible. Those charts spoke for themselves. That doesn’t bode well for a Liberal’s hopes and dreams IMO.
If Clinton would have gotten more than two or three percent of the Perot vote, I’d have been surprised. If Bush had gotten picked up 12.6% plus one from Perot’s vote, he would have won (of course ignoring the electoral vote for the time being). There’s no way in hell I see Clinton taking 6.3% of that vote.
IMO, Bush would have won with a vote of about 52% to 48%, perhaps a bit more. I believe he would have beaten Clinton handily. Still, that would hinge on him getting the electoral vote necessary. It’s possible he wouldn’t have gotten them. I can’t say really.
Here’s the vote totals. Clinton 44,909,806, Bush 39,104,550, and Perot 19,743,821. Although Clinton wound up with 370 to 168 electoral votes, what happens when 13 to 15 million more votes goes to Bush? That two hundred point electoral margin is obliterated.
While it isn’t conclusive who wins IMO, I do believe it’s a good debate. I personally lean toward Bush. The type of person Perot connected with, was not a Liberal IMO.
I think most people knew Clinton was a Commie dufus. And his wife was a nightmare.
Still, in the end you might be right. Thanks for raising the question.
“IMO, Bush would have won with a vote of about 52% to 48%, perhaps a bit more. I believe he would have beaten Clinton handily. Still, that would hinge on him getting the electoral vote necessary. It’s possible he wouldn’t have gotten them. I can’t say really.”
It is an argument I no longer try to have in our family. I voted Perot, by the way, and my cousin brings it up every time he wants to start something.
I ain’t so blindly ignorant or stupid or stubborn as to say that I wish I could go back and change that vote.
A few years back I took a long hard look at the electoral map and I still feel that Clinton would have pulled it out. I do think your popular numbers are good though. That would have been interesting and ahead of it’s time to have Bush 41 win the popular, but lose the election on the electoral college.
As you aptly point out, I don’t think the media would have been all that upset as they were with his son.