Perot Does Not Drop Out

The idea that Perot could have lived up to his pre-dropping out polling is probably a fantasy. Perot wasn't the kind of universally popular figure who just might win in the context of an independent campaign.

However his dropping out and claiming Bush had the CIA try to ruin his daughter's wedding probably damaged his campaign to some extent.

Assuming none of that happens how would the 1992 election turn out? Even assuming Perot's polling was inflated no drop out might well alter the dynamic of the race by increasing Perot's support on the margins and preventing Clinton from having an opportunity to establish and solidify his lead over President Bush

If I recall what I've read about polling in 1992 Clinton's lead really developed in the period after Perot dropped out-during and after the convention. Unpopular as Bush was-early on Clinton was third behind Perot and Bush. If that's accurate Perot could make Clinton's work at obtaining the plurality of national support in that same period harder.

I also wonder if Perot had the potential to send the 1992 election to the House.

I don't think that Perot could win-but I also think there's a possibility that his erratic behavior reduced the amount of support he received or at least had some impact on the margins of the outcome.

If Perot doesn't drop out-how does the outcome change in November?
 
I think if he stayed in, no wavering and continued his tactic he still would have lost, however that being said he would have done abundantly better. He also was doing his best to educate the public and draw attention to the deficit and other pressing issues.

Reinvesting in America was much needed, his flip flopping didn't help.

It might have been enough to mount a start to a third party. Then again the two major parties tend to adapt to crush third parties
 
Perot would likely win Maine. There's no chance in hell he keeps Bill Clinton from beating Pappy Bush, but maybe it allows the Reform Party to gain more traction.
 
"By the end of June, Clinton had the lead, which started to grow. A poll released on July 16 gave him 42%, with Bush at 30 and Perot far back with 20. That same day Perot, battered by negative coverage and furious with the media, called a press conference in Dallas and abruptly withdrew from the race. The Democrats were holding their convention that week and Perot said he now believed they had “revitalized” themselves under Clinton, who delivered his acceptance speech that night." http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ross-perot-myth-reborn-amid-rumors-third-party-trump-candidacy Now I realize that Clinton's lead in the poll referred to here may largely have been a matter of a "convention bounce." But that Perot was in decline before he withdrew--the novelty had worn off and he was receiving increasing scrutiny--does seem to be a fact, as does Clinton's increasing strength. Ironically, by withdrawing and then suddenly re-entering, Perot may actually have gotten *more* votes than he would have gotten had he stayed in the race all along.
 
Third party polling is miserably inaccurate. Perot '96 peaked at 17 and finished at 8. Johnson '12 peaked at 7 and finished at 0.99. Anderson '80 peaked at 26 and finished with 7.

The only exception is George Wallace '68, who polled 7-8 and got 7-8.
 
I don't quite get where we are saying, win Maine? Do we mean, get an electoral vote since Maine is the one state which can split its electoral votes?

========

And yes, H. Ross Perot is quirky and off-beat and even weird to some extent. Creative people often are.

And I don't agree with his trade-skeptic policies, but perhaps that's for another discussion.
 
He might've done well enough in swing states to give Bush a narrow win in the electoral vote, while Clinton narrowly wins the popular vote.
 
He might've done well enough in swing states to give Bush a narrow win in the electoral vote, while Clinton narrowly wins the popular vote.

Why do you assume that his extra votes--not that I think there will be many, anyway--would come entirely or predominantly from Clinton supporters? Exit polls seem to indicate that OTL Perot supporters were drawn fairly equally from Bush and Clinton supporters (and of course some of Perot's support was from people who otherwise would not have voted at all).
 
Don't forget Nebraska

Nebraska had statewide winner-take-all until 1996. http://www.fairvote.org/maine_nebraska

Anyway, the main reason people list Maine as a potential Perot state in 1992 is not because of the possibility of an electoral vote split, but simply because it was the state he came closest to winning in OTL (he actually finished a bit ahead of Bush there, though eight points behind Clinton). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992
 
Why do you assume that his extra votes--not that I think there will be many, anyway--would come entirely or predominantly from Clinton supporters? Exit polls seem to indicate that OTL Perot supporters were drawn fairly equally from Bush and Clinton supporters (and of course some of Perot's support was from people who otherwise would not have voted at all).
Bush was ahead in the polls until Perot dropped out and at times Clinton, if I remember correctly, was third in a three man race. If Perot stays in and keeps his crazier side quiet, it MIGHT be enough for Bush to narrowly (and maybe even controversially if it's only due to the electoral college) win a second term. Perot dropping out just before the Democratic convention really helped Clinton.
 
Bush was ahead in the polls until Perot dropped out and at times Clinton, if I remember correctly, was third in a three man race. If Perot stays in and keeps his crazier side quiet, it MIGHT be enough for Bush to narrowly (and maybe even controversially if it's only due to the electoral college) win a second term. Perot dropping out just before the Democratic convention really helped Clinton.

I doubt it. Bill Clinton was and is a boss campaigner, plus the recession would benefit him. There's a reason he won a seven-point victory. I'd say Bill would snatch the lead and would hold it.
 
Why do you assume that his extra votes--not that I think there will be many, anyway--would come entirely or predominantly from Clinton supporters? Exit polls seem to indicate that OTL Perot supporters were drawn fairly equally from Bush and Clinton supporters (and of course some of Perot's support was from people who otherwise would not have voted at all).
in a similar vein, some political scientists did a study in Florida for the 2000 Presidential election between Gore and Bush.

Among those who voted for Nader, they estimated that at most 60% may have voted for Gore. And the actual split may have been closer, say 55 to 45 for example. That is, these two political scientists conclude that at least 40% of Ralph Nader voters would have voted for Bush.

And they did this by looking at electronic records of actual votes, including the down-ticket voting. I think there's potential privacy issues. But this is what they looked at.

And similar conclusion for Pat Buchanan voters.

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/lewis/pdf/greenreform9.pdf
 
Last edited:
Top