With the death of President George H. W. Bush many in the media are writing that President Bush in 1992 lost his bid for a second term to Bill Clinton. That is simply false, or it is at least far from being the entire story. And this is not an attack on President Clinton I assure you.
But in November of 1992 then President Bush lost out on a second term because of the candidacy of Ross Perot, a Texas billionaire who disliked President Bush intensely and was happy to see him lose.
Perot was born six years after President Bush. Very little is being heard from him now, which is surely no surprise whatsoever. But his time will come soon enough. Perhaps then what he did will become more widely publicized.
Yup. Perot served as a spoiler all right. Certainly it is possible he won enough votes in key states, which might otherwise have gone to President Bush, to throw the electoral college to President Clinton.
Incidentally, I see the same scenario at play right now, looking forward to the 2020 election. In a two-way race between Trump and any Democrat, I see Trump coming out on top in another VERY close race. But throw in a third candidate, e.g. Kasich, and Trump will lose for certain, just as Bush did back in 1992.
What the heck, we saw this same thing happening in 2000 with (the younger) Bush vs. Gore. Ralph Nader stole enough votes from Gore to throw the election to Bush. I guess what goes around comes around.
I do not like spoilers on either side. They mess stuff up.
I still remember Perot… darn, I’m old. A lot of people voted for him thinking “he’s not just another politician”. I also remember the bad economy then had a lot to do with it.
It was quite a hard time for Bush to lose to this young 'draft-dodger" Clinton but just take a look at how he handled the transition.
Also remember how choose not go into Iraq. That took courage to go against a lot of go-ho generals. The sad things is that style of politician got no chance these days.
I watched the video. If Nate Silver were a reliable prognosticator people today would be addressing POTUS as “Madam President”.
Reality is that in 1992 President George H. W. Bush had two opponents operating as a tag team. And they defeated him. Perot in particular was poison for Bush because Perot hated Bush. Without Perot it would have been a different outcome.
That is not my claim. Only am saying Perot himself detested Bush. Perot viewed himself as a “real deal” Texan. He regarded Bush as an easterner, a phony, who moved to TX and tried to lay claim to status as a Texan equivalent to Perot’s own.
Perot disliked Bush viscerally and was delighted when Bush failed to win re-election. With all the praise for President Bush now, in the wake of his passing, Perot must be going NUTS!!
Virtually all polls done in advance of the 2016 election, a time when polling science was FAR more advanced and sophisticated than way back in 1992, showed Mrs. Clinton would DESTROY poor, hapless, Donald Trump. The polls said Trump had virtually no chance.
Those polls were wrong.
Same thing happened in 2004. Late in the afternoon of that election day Mr. Kerry was taking calls offering congratulations on his defeat of the younger President Bush. It was in the bag for Kerry. The exit polls proved his victory.
NOT!
Only actual election outcomes matter. Polls do NOT matter. Period.
Um, so who did win the '92 election then? Because you seem to be re-writing history. Bush lost to Clinton. He beat Perot. Perot may or may not have contributed to him losing to Clinton, but he did in fact lose to Clinton.
Civics 101. Beneath the rules of our REPUBLIC (that is what we have, not a pure democracy), the popular vote does not trump the electoral college vote. And that is exactly how things should be. Our founding fathers were geniuses.
Oh, puh-leeze. Give me a break. Virtually everyone believed Mrs. Clinton was a lock. And nobody believed it more than Mrs. Clinton herself, BTW.
Course all the smart folks who believed that stuff do not live in the sort of place I do. We rural people voted . . . and we did not vote for Mrs. Clinton.
Dude, I do not mind your quoting me. But to do so the way you did, intentionally cutting off a portion of my words, is simply disingenuous. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Perot voter here. He most certainly stole bush votes. No way would i have voted for clinton if perot dropped out. So yes i can say from experiance … and others like me im sure … perot won it for clinton. (Tho i suspect he wouldhave won in 96 anyways)
Agreed. I was still a Republican in 1992 (no longer - left that party circa '04-'05). So of course I voted for Bush back in '92. But from what I’m reading an entire segment of (otherwise) Bush voters went for Mr. Perot because Perot was perceived as being to the right of Bush, i.e., more conservative. In retrospect I can today clearly see that Perot was indeed to Bush’s right politically.
Like his son, George H. W. Bush was no conservative. Neither qualified even to carry Ronald Reagan’s jock strap. But they surely thought they did. I caught on very late. In '04 Bush 43 sent his toadies into my state during the Republican primary to campaign actively for an obvious RINO and against a superb conservative Republican candidate for the US Senate. I supported the conservative, and I was pissed off at Bush. But it was the Harriet Miers nomination in '05 that finally awakened me from my stupor. I was like: WHAT the F!!! And I left the Republicans in disgust.
I’m not the sharpest knife in the drawer, so I can understand millions of smarter voters than me voting, in 1992, for a candidate less liberal than Bush 41, one more willing to put America first.
I hate tp say it. But you can hamsrting a president by electing democrats in the senate.
Im not aware of which candidate u are speaking of … but a rino that wins is better than ideological perfect candidate who loses.
So sometimes … u gotta get what you can.
Reagan wasn’t as conservative as his hagiographers make him out to be.
Tax increases, amnesty, increasing the national debt, increasing the size of government, etc.
Only 5-5