Perot runs in 1988

zookeeper

Banned
If Businesman Ross Perot ran against Bush and Dukasus in 88 could he spilt the vote so Dukasus had one?
 
Bush beat Dukakis by 7.7%. Perot got 18.9% in 1992. So if we assume he wins roughly the same percentage in 1988 as 1992, then he would have to have drawn at least 70% of his supporters from Bush to throw the election to Dukakis. As has been pointed out, Perot drew roughly equally from both parties, certainly no more than 60-40 in one direction or the other. He could make it closer I suppose, but not enough to reverse a landslide like 1988.
 
Bush beat Dukakis by 7.7%. Perot got 18.9% in 1992. So if we assume he wins roughly the same percentage in 1988 as 1992, then he would have to have drawn at least 70% of his supporters from Bush to throw the election to Dukakis. As has been pointed out, Perot drew roughly equally from both parties, certainly no more than 60-40 in one direction or the other. He could make it closer I suppose, but not enough to reverse a landslide like 1988.

True, but OTOH Perot being in the race and being as popular as in OTL's 1992 election would be bound to cause butterflies, possibly leading to Dukakis campaigning differently, i.e. better, because let's face it, his campaign OTL was the worst possible.
 
And it is good to notice that on '92 election Perot get to TV debate with Clinton and Bush. Same might not happen on '88 election. When candidate get to TV challenging main candidates he get visibility. Probably Perot on '88 wouldn't change much if anything. It is still possible that Bush will win the election. And him might be good chances to win election '92.
 
Perot split the vote 50/50 when moderate Clinton was the Democratic nominee and was ahead by 6 percent. In 1988, a lot more moderates deserted the liberal Dukakis and flocked to Bush, who was ahead by 7 percent. I think that it is quite likely that many of these people would go to Perot first, meaning he would split the vote more on Bush's side. Whether he'd do if enough to give Dukakis victory, I don't know, but I think Dukakis would probably do better electorally.

If Perot gets in the debates, and avoids the temporary drop out situation of OTL, he might be able to do better than he did in 1992 - not running against an incumbent president and the very charismatic Bill Clinton.
 
Dukakis talked about how America was starting to drift away from a middle-class society. Perot in '92 also talked about the loss of middle-class jobs.

If they had both been candidates in the same race, it have made for a wide-ranging and damn interesting conversation. Don't know if much would have come of it. Economic problems are just very difficult.
 
Third party candidacies tend to do well when the incumbent president or party is so unpopular, that the primary opposition candidate cannot contain all the defecting voters.

This was decidedly not the case in 1988. Reagan's popularity was in the 40s throughout most of that campaign, and up in the 50s by Election Day. Though the public was lukewarm towards Bush, he did not inspire sharp opposition.

In contrast, in 1992, Bush's approval ratings were in the 30s, and there was widespread fatigue with 12 years of Republican rule and a lackluster economy. That was the kind of climate that enabled Perot to capitalize and win close to 20 percent of the vote.

In 1988, with Reagan still relatively popular, Perot would not likely have won more than 10% of the vote - and probably considerably less. He might have denied Bush a majority, but at best it would have looked a little like Clinton's 96 victory, with Perot drawing somewhere between 5 and 10 percent, Dukakis stuck in the low 40s, and Bush in the high 40s, or just about at 50 percent.
 
Top