Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

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

    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:
      gabjoh

      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:
        LordMike

        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

          Link:

          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 http://polibeast.blogspot.com/ and http://twitter.com/polibeast

      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:
        bythesea

        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.

        http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/13/21516/201/804/660248

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

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (173)
  • Baltimore (88)
  • Community (84)
  • Bernie Sanders (66)
  • Freddie Gray (60)
  • Civil Rights (58)
  • Elections (41)
  • Culture (38)
  • Hillary Clinton (36)
  • Media (36)
  • Racism (33)
  • Law (32)
  • 2016 (31)
  • Labor (27)
  • Education (26)
  • Environment (25)
  • Republicans (23)
  • Politics (23)
  • Barack Obama (22)
  • Economy (21)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site