Replies

'it is pretty likely that Bush I would have won reelection in 1992"

I have read a number of academic studies by political scientists over the years, and all the ones that I can remember reached that very conclusion - absent Perot, it's likely Bush gets reelected, although it would have been very close.

'96 is a slightly different case. Clinton probably prevails, but it would have been a much closer election, and certainly not the electoral blow-out it was.

I have read a number of academic studies by political scientists over the years, and all the ones that I can remember reached that very conclusion - absent Perot, it's likely Bush gets reelected, although it would have been very close.

Sweet, it's nice to see my analysis backed up by people who (presumably) actually know what they're talking about!

'96 is a slightly different case. Clinton probably prevails, but it would have been a much closer election, and certainly not the electoral blow-out it was.

Yes, that's pretty much the conclusion I reached, too. Of course, if Bush I had won in 1992, there would probably not have been a Clinton rerun in 1996, but you never know.

I have read a number of academic studies by political scientists over the years, and all the ones that I can remember reached that very conclusion - absent Perot, it's likely Bush gets reelected, although it would have been very close.

According to exit polling based on second choices, Bush would have won Ohio if Perot hadn't been in the race.

But Bush could have carried Ohio, Wisconsin, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Nevada, Montana, Kentucky, Georgia and Colorado with a total of 87 electoral votes and still have lost the election by 283 electoral votes to 255.

1992 wasn't 2000 or 2004. Economic troubles meant that Clinton would probably have carried large Middle Western states and would have broken the Republican lock on the South and West even if Perot hadn't been in the race.

Because of the economy, Bush just wasn't that popular in 1992. His approval rating fell to the 40 and 30 percent range. A lot of voters who based on regional or ethnic or religious data would usually vote Republican just wanted him out. Plus, Perot and Clinton brought a lot of new voters into the election, which made it that much harder for Bush to make a comeback.

“absent Perot, it’s likely Bush gets reelected, although it would have been very close.”

and how close could it be if there weren’t a Perot on the ballot and Clinton gets 43% of the vote? That leaves 57% for someone to garner and I don’t think America’s faithful “Green Party” candidate would have benefited in any material way. How many Perot voters would have chosen Clintoon if Perot had not been on the ballot? Bush would likely have won with 53% of the vote albeit the media did everything they could to paint him in a negative light while touting Clintoon as the southern boy loved by the masses.