WI: No "culture war" speech at 1992 GOP convention

I doubt that the speech changed a single electoral vote--or more than a handful of popular votes. The convention, like most, produced a temporary "bounce" that quickly faded. http://www.nytimes.com/1992/08/26/u...nvention-nearly-evaporate-in-latest-poll.html Social conservatives were going to vote for Bush, anyway--it was Republicans who were concerned with *economic* issues who were most likely to bolt to Perot. (Note that the socially conservative South was Perot's weakest region.) As for social liberals, they weren't likely to vote for Bush with or without the speech.
 
Third party voters are not as ideological as we tend to think they are.

For example, the below study, 40% or more of Nader voters in Florida in 2000, would have voted for George W. Bush. Yes, this surprises me, too.

[2000 election between Bush and Gore as example]

" . . . As a consequence, and we elaborate on this later, the 60% figure we have noted above is an upper bound: at most 60% of Nader voters would have voted for Gore had they faced a two-candidate election, and at least 40% of the would have chosen Bush. . . "

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/lewis/pdf/greenreform9.pdf
 
Last edited:
To the question of Buchanan's "culture was" speech, one less distraction,

. . . and some addition chance for Bush, Sr., to talk about his economic accomplishments and make the case that he's the best guy to weather the recession.
 
Last edited:
Top