DJ, with all due respect, your hypothetical, Perotless 1992 presidential election map is not based on reality. Exit polls showed that Perot voters preferred Bush over Clinton by about 55%-40%. And many of the Perot voters who preferred Clinton over Bush were kids who probably would have stayed home had Perot not been on the ballot. Had Perot not been on the ballot (e.g., had he not returned after dropping out due to supposed “Republican dirty tricks”), Bush would have seen a net gain versus Clinton in every state. A simplistic way to predict how each state would have voted in a Perotless 1992 election would be to have Bush net 25% of the Perot vote. However, one would expect Bush to net a higher percentage in conservative states and a lower percentage in liberal states, so the analysis needs to be more nuanced than that.
My analysis of the electoral results from 1992 leads me to conclude that, in a race without Perot, turnout (as a percentage of the 18+ population) would have been around the same as in 1988, Clinton would have won the national popular vote by not more than 1%, and that Clinton would have won at least 264 electoral votes, Bush at least 255 (the 18 states Bush won in the three-man race, plus GA, MT, CO, NV, OH, WI, NH, NJ and KY), 19 EVs (CT, ME and IA) would be toss-ups leaning towards Clinton. Thus, Clinton would most likely win by 283-255 in the Electoral College, but had Bush been able to win CT and IA he would have eked out a victory.
BTW, the analysis for 1996 would be far different, with Perot voters being far likelier to vote for Dole than for Clinton (if you didn’t vote for Clinton in 1996, you were unlikely to do so just because Perot wasn’t ilon the ballot). I think that in a Perotless 1996 race Dole would have lost both nationally and in PA by about 1%, but had Dole carried PA he would have gotten exactly 270 EVs.
I used a number of factors to come up with the map, my gut feeling, looking at which candidate was closer to a majority in a given state, guesstimating what % of Perot voters would go which way and recalling the direction on how some of the Congressional races went. All conjecture, of course. Clearly, Bush was going to underperform 1988, but I believe some states would’ve already left our column (perhaps for the forseeable future with respect to Presidential races) as we see what passes for reliable GOP Presidential states today.
1992 also happens to be the first race I was able to legally cast a vote in, so I remember it fairly well, and it was a bad feeling (my state went for Clinton, if only because he picked the then-supposedly popular Gore). At the time, I didn’t even want to imagine that execrable ticket could even win, but it showed the degree to which Bush, Sr. had completely lost touch with a majority of the electorate.
Where you and I disagree is to what degree Clinton would’ve carried the EC, though you & I appear to agree that Bush would’ve lost (albeit by a closer margin).
Your prediction:
“Bush at least 255 (the 18 states Bush won in the three-man race, plus GA, MT, CO, NV, OH, WI, NH, NJ and KY),”
I moved GA & MT to the Bush win, but the others I couldn’t. CO seemed Dem-leaning (electing Ben Nighthorse Campbell before his switch), NV seemed too marginal not to go Dem, OH was a bellwether (and hence, would’ve gone Dem, as so many of the House races did there); WI moved away from us by then; NH was where Buchanan embarrassed Bush, and I think Clinton would’ve carried it; NJ was too gone, too, and even with a massively unpopular Dem Governor at the time, still wouldn’t have changed that. KY, unfortunately, also would vote similarly to TN, and they (sadly) liked Bubba-Gore there. The Dems romped in the House races there and Wendell Ford won in a landslide.
“19 EVs (CT, ME and IA) would be toss-ups leaning towards Clinton.”
To me, it was a no-brainer those would all go to Clinton. IA was already performing poorly for the GOP in the ‘80s, and CT & ME had just simply moved away.
“BTW, the analysis for 1996 would be far different, with Perot voters being far likelier to vote for Dole than for Clinton (if you didn’t vote for Clinton in 1996, you were unlikely to do so just because Perot wasn’t ilon the ballot). I think that in a Perotless 1996 race Dole would have lost both nationally and in PA by about 1%, but had Dole carried PA he would have gotten exactly 270 EVs.”
I didn’t throw in a Perotless ‘96, but clearly had they broken for Dole, he would’ve improved his standing. TN & KY would’ve gone for him, which would’ve foretold of Gore’s eventual bust in 2000, which I had a feeling for by then. I think if Dole had been a more aggressive campaigner, he could’ve gotten a narrow win and rid the country of Bubba. I know Dole gets bashed around here, but he was certainly a far better man. Other than he, I don’t know whom we could’ve recruited to run in ‘96 where the outcome would’ve resulted in a blowout (Colin Powell seemed presentable, but ultimately would’ve been a disaster as a liberal). Frightening to think Slick Willard, had he beaten Ted Kennedy, would’ve jumped right into the Presidential contest, and probably would’ve won outright without nearly the scrutiny he has gotten since (unfortunately). That would’ve been even worse than a Powell Presidency (hell, he probably would’ve picked him as a VP).
Very interesting debate. My position is sans Ross Bush would have lost a close race. Dole as well. I’d rather have had Dole in 88 or have Dole win in 1996 instead of W. Bush in 2000.
Powell makes me sick, I’d wouldn’t take him over Romney or even Jon Huntsman. I doubt a Senator Romney could have beaten Dole in the 96 primaries fresh of running as a “moderate”, ego or no ego I doubt he would have tried, he would have angled for VP maybe, or waited until 2000 after having had time to flip flop to conservative positions.