Skip to main content

View Diary: All This Has Happened Before (371 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Perot had a huge effect that year (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Inland

    That wasn't my point. I was just refuting the ballwashing being given to him. Really without Perot I doubt Clinton gets elected. He really did speak to people and said what they wanted to hear. He probably saw things as too black and white to be effective as President but most of what he said made sense. It's hard as hell to ignore someone who gets a third of the country behind him.

    •  oh really? Another consequence of Perot (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TheChop

      is espoused your post. Before Perot returned, Clinton was far ahead of Bush in every poll. Perot was pro-choice, pro-gay, anti-NAFTA, all liberal stances, or at least less Republican. While Clinton went down Perot increased while Bush stagnated. Bush's approvals were at levels in 1992 where no party wins the White House again. Your theory was the GOP excuse for obstructing our President Clinton, which is why health care didn't get passed, and the GOP was able to win 1994. 1996 was because Perot blitzed the airwaves at the end of the campaign with anti-Clinton ads, and Clinton was good enough to do Tom Daschle's bidding and camp for congressional candidates. Not to mention, Perot was all over the air in 1998-2000 hitting Clinton on Monica, which is why his supporters went Bush, and his more liberal supporters stayed home or went for Nader. Saying Bush would have won 1992 without Perot is like saying McCain would have won 2008. The reason thats even less probable is there wasn't a race factor in 1992 to hinder Clinton in Appalachia, which he largely won.

      •  HOLY SOURCES! (0+ / 0-)

        Debating what would have happened without Perot is a fuzzy science at best. You've got a real point there with the "Clinton won because of Perot" being CW of the worst kind. Personally I think right leaning people were more infatuated with Perot than left leaners. That 14 percent that supported him at the end of the campaign were people that it's my personal opinion saw Clinton as an unacceptable solution and would have either stayed home or voted Bush. That same bloc then went on to fuel the '94 revolution. Without internal polling it's hard to say and even with I would say it's unreliable. It would have been a much closer election either way. They weren't happy with the status quo but were equally unhappy with Clinton.

        Great post. Really learned a lot.

        •  just consider mathematically (0+ / 0-)

          that for Bush to have gotten > 50% of the popular vote, he'd have needed 12.6% more of the vote, and 12.6/18.9(Perot's vote)= 66.6% of Perot's vote, while Clinton only would need 7% more of the popular vote to get to 50% and 7/18.9=37%. And this assumes ALL PEROT VOTERS STILL VOTE. Clearly, many would have stayed home, which makes things even more impossible for Bush and easier for Clinton. Mathematically alone, Clinton had the election in a lock.

          If you don't trust the 1992 polling, why should we trust the 1994 polling? But if we're gonna talk the 1994 "revolution," then why not include the fact that turnout was low, and yes Perot voters went with Republicans, but that was because the political pendulum had swung. It doesn't mean they would have went with Bush in 1992 sans Perot at all. I respect your right to an "opinion," but when the only somewhat reliable metric to measure this kind of thing says that your idea that "That 14 percent that supported him at the end of the campaign were people that it's my personal opinion saw Clinton as an unacceptable solution and would have either stayed home or voted Bush" is wrong, I'll take the metric. Not all of Perot's voters actually voted in 1994 too, because if they all had, the result may have not been as bad.

          •  No you've convinced me... (0+ / 0-)

            It wouldn't have been the absolute ass kicking that Bush received though.

            The 14% was screwed or at least majority of it. They couldn't vote Republican because they hated Bush. They couldn't vote Clinton because he was a liberal so they had to vote Perot. The 1994 election was also about the south forgiving Republicans for reconstruction and voting for them again on a local level.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site