Skip to main content

View Diary: AZ-Pres: Obama surprisingly strong in Arizona (104 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You can't beat somebody with nobody (5+ / 0-)

    The GOP have to be hoping that Daniels or Somebody enters the race.

    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

    by blue aardvark on Wed May 04, 2011 at 11:38:17 AM PDT

    •  You can if the economy is seen as bad (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pluto, mconvente, Odysseus

      Back in 1992, Bill Clinton was seen as a nobody with personal scandals, but because the economy was perceived to be bad, he was able to defeat Bush.  

      Carter was a nobody also and he beat Ford for the same reason along with Watergate.  

      •  Clinton also had the benefit of (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Ross Perot.

        "Intolerance is something which belongs to the religions we have rejected." - J.J. Rousseau -6.38, -4.15

        by James Allen on Wed May 04, 2011 at 12:09:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's been debunked (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cka, gabjoh

          Perot voters would have split 50%-50% between Bush and Clinton per exit polling.  

          •  I don't think so. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            I've seen other numbers that something like 58% would've gone for Bush, and given it's the electoral college, even that slight difference could've significantly changed things.

            "Intolerance is something which belongs to the religions we have rejected." - J.J. Rousseau -6.38, -4.15

            by James Allen on Wed May 04, 2011 at 12:36:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Perot (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              The poll I saw right after the election showed 38% of Perot voters going to Bush, 38% to Clinton, and the other 24% not voting or throwing protest votes.  

              SSP poster. 41, Dem-leaning Ind (-0.25, -3.90), CA-5

              by sacman701 on Wed May 04, 2011 at 12:58:26 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I think we should agree that exit (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                LordMike, gabjoh

                polling can be unreliable.

                "Intolerance is something which belongs to the religions we have rejected." - J.J. Rousseau -6.38, -4.15

                by James Allen on Wed May 04, 2011 at 01:02:20 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  I've seen 1992 Senate and Congressional (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                exit polls that showed Perot voters mostly breaking for Republicans. I think without Perot the campaign would have played out differently and Bush would have won.

                •  Not what I've seen (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  drobertson, gabjoh


                  DIONNE (11/12/92): In House races, Perot voters split down the middle: 51 percent said they backed Republicans, 49 percent backed Democrats. In the presidential contest, 38 percent of Perot supporters said they would have supported Clinton if Perot had not been on the ballot and 37 percent said they would have supported Bush.

                  An additional 6 percent of Perot voters said they would have sought another third-party candidate, while 14 percent said they would not have voted if Perot had not run.

                  ASSOCIATED PRESS (11/4/92): Exit polls suggest Ross Perot hurt George Bush and Bill Clinton about equally.

                  The Voter Research and Surveys poll, a joint project of the four major television networks, found 38 percent of Perot voters would have voted for Clinton and 37 percent would have voted for Bush if Perot had not been on the ballot. Fifteen percent said they would not have voted, and 6 percent listed other candidates.

                  Not sure you can get more evenly split than that, both for the presidential race and the generic House ballot.

                  Political Director, Daily Kos

                  by David Nir on Wed May 04, 2011 at 07:08:14 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Yes (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              James Allen, LordMike

              Perot voters were not evenly distributed either (and I suspect the reasons why people voted Perot changed by region as well). That's why (although it didn't change the outcome) Clinton was able to carry Montana.

              26, Male, MA-08 (hometown MI-06)

              by bumiputera on Wed May 04, 2011 at 12:59:18 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Yeah, I think Perot undoubtedly hurt Bush (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LordMike, JayBat

              Ignoring the exit polls, I think Clinton coalesced the vast majority of Democrats (liberals, moderates and conservatives), plus liberal Independents. Bush only coalesced the GOP rank-and-file. Moderate Independents broke for all three candidates and conservative Indies split between Bush and Perot. Also splitting between Bush and Perot were libertarian-minded Republicans. There was no constituency which split solely between Perot and Clinton. I bet the Perot voters, again kicking exit polls to the curb, would've went with Bush over Clinton by close to 3 to 2.

              For daily political commentary, visit me at and

              by andyroo312 on Wed May 04, 2011 at 05:04:14 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  3 to 2 is right but not enough for Bush...... (0+ / 0-)

                Bush doesn't win with a 3-2 split.

                Keep in mind Perot drove up turnout, from the then-normal of low-50s to 55%.  Some % of Perot voters would've stayed home.  I've done back-of-envelope math that says no more than 3/4 of Perot voters would've showed up otherwise, and a 3-2 split for Bush among those still gives Clinton a narrow popular vote win.

                More importantly, researchers who have studied the likely electoral college split have concluded that Clinton would've won a big majority even without Perot.  He would've lost a handful of states to Bush like Montana and Georgia and some others, but not nearly enough for Bush to get close to 270.

                43, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and a boy, Democrat, VA-10

                by DCCyclone on Wed May 04, 2011 at 07:11:07 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  48 of 50 polls said differently (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                and decisively in fact.

                It's one of the great revisionist myths to pretend that Perot hurt Bush.  Complete nonsense.  Poll after preelection poll after poll decisively said otherwise.


                by tommypaine on Thu May 05, 2011 at 12:37:23 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Debunked by (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DCCyclone, Odysseus, itskevin, David Nir

            E.J. Dionne right after the 1992 election.  Dionne, as I remember, was not a columnist at the time, but the WashPost's premier political reporter.  He points out that it was an electoral issue, not percentage of votes.  Here's what he wrote:

            DIONNE (11/8/92): Ross Perot's presence on the 1992 presidential ballot did not change the outcome of the election, according to an analysis of the second choices of Perot supporters.
            The analysis, based on exit polls conducted by Voter Research & Surveys (VRS) for the major news organizations, indicated that in Perot's absence, only Ohio would have have shifted from the Clinton column to the Bush column. This would still have left Clinton with a healthy 349-to-189 majority in the electoral college.

            Issue elaborated on this site.

        •  common mistake... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          to attribute Clinton's win -- or at least part of it -- due to the presence of Perot, but exit polls showed he took equally from both Clinton and Bush in terms of party ID and political spectrum.  Just as many conservatives voted for him as did liberals.  Clinton would have won with or without Perot.

        •  Perot's reentry hurt Clinton a lot (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          James Allen

          Clinton was ahead in the polls of 48 states before Perot got back in the race.  

          Asking Perot voters how they would have broken on the day they voted for him (after he campaigned for a couple months) is different than asking them before Perot got back in.  Perot's reentry dramatically hurt Clinton, who was looking at a wipeout of Nixon/McGovern range if not for Perot getting back in.

          by tommypaine on Thu May 05, 2011 at 12:35:07 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  but does (0+ / 0-)

        anybody in this crop of Republicans have Clinton's political skills, or charisma?

        •  In a word... (0+ / 0-)


          Republican Jesus has yet to descend from the heavens on his cloud of glory to lead the Chosen People out of the Domain of the Beast.

          Independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native, Swingnut for life.

          by SaoMagnifico on Wed May 04, 2011 at 08:39:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Daniels has no chance at nomination...... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TofG, SaoMagnifico, gabjoh

      Daniels is one of so many GOP establishment fantasy candidates.  They got nuthin' among the people actually running except Pawlenty and Romney, and showing how little faith they have in him, they flail around for new blood as they tell themselves a silly story that this guy or that guy is their savior.

      Same thing happened in '08, and the product of that was Fred Thompson.

      Mitch Daniels is the next Fred Thompson.  He'll get some hype, fall flat, crash and burn, and disappear without registering at all in early states.

      That is, if he even runs.

      43, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and a boy, Democrat, VA-10

      by DCCyclone on Wed May 04, 2011 at 12:25:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site