Replies

There are serious problems and debatable points with that article, the cheap shots at Rush Limbaugh aside. They rely way too much on the same notorious anti-GOP polling data that the media uses. That’s the same nonsense going back to claims of a Carter victory in 1980, a Mondale landslide in 1984, a Dukakis romp in 1988 and so on and so forth.

Though as I pointed out in a prior post that Bush, Sr. did run a thoroughly awful and incompetent reelection campaign, Perot was responsible for inflicting mortal damage. He turned out to be a phony from the get-go. As soon as he obtained a lead in the polls (pushing Bubba into 3rd), he dropped out at once. He got back in later on, if only to assure Bubba the Rapist would win.

It was ludicrous to presume (as the article author did) that Bubba would get some commanding mid-50s% victory absent Perot. That was never going to happen. He wasn’t ever that popular. Nobody since LBJ managed to get that kind of % for a Dem candidate for President. No Democrat since after 1964 has. Bubba couldn’t even break 50%, even against Bob Dole and Perot in ‘96. Zero, at his best, and against two ringers in a row, got a lackluster 52.9% and 51% in ‘08 and ‘12.

No, I think Bubba had an absolute high-water mark of 49% tops. Absent Perot getting in at all, Bush Sr. would’ve gotten anywhere from 46-51%. The question is whether in a one-on-one election IF he could’ve pushed past Bubba.

As an aside, if you look at the election figures from 1988 and 1992, you can see that Perot took most of the entire % drop between Bush’s ‘88 performance and ‘92. Bubba didn’t even get what Dukakis got in 1988 (presumably that modest difference were Dems who broke for Perot).