In the summer of 1992, independent businessman Ross Perot appeared to have a strong chance of winning the popular vote in that year's presidential election. He polled far ahead of Clinton, and even beat Bush in some polls before his support slipped and he dropped out of the race that July. However, Perot re-entered the race in October and took 18.9% of the popular vote - but carried no states in the electoral college. What if Perot had dropped out for good and never re-entered the 1992 Presidential Election?
WI: Perot Stays Out of the 1992 Presidential Election
- Thread starter Amadeus
- Start date
According to the exit polls, 38% of Perot voters would have voted for Clinton, 38% for Bush, and 24% would not have voted. So assuming no changes for the moment to the dynamic of the race, you have a popular vote split of around 52-47 for Clinton.
In that event, Clinton doesn't take office as a minority President and can claim to have a majority of the people behind him. Further, Republicans can't blame Perot or argue that Clinton only won because of vote splitting. I'm not sure to what extent this could change Clinton's Presidency, but it might make him that much more effective in negotiating with Congress.
SsgtC
Banned
Not quite. Well, the raw numbers yes. But what's going to matter more is where those votes are. If Perot voters went to Bush more heavily than they went to Clinton in a state Clinton narrowly won, they could end up flipping the state to Bush. Or vice versa. If Perot is out and stays out, the entire election map gets thrown on its head.
In one of Bush's obituaries I read that a group of political scientists did an extensive analysis of 1992, and found that Perot's candidacy only affected the electoral college votes of one state. Otherwise, the electoral college was unaffected and Bush would still have lost without Perot.
SsgtC
Banned
Ok. I couldn't find state by state polling data in the couple min I had to look so wasn't sure.
Another thing we should consider post-1992 is whether or not Perot runs in 1996. Without the relative success of his 1992 bid, I'm not sure Perot would have the political capital to run again or start the Reform Party. I believe that in 1996 Perot took support equally from both parties as in 1992, so if he doesn't run in '96 that would probably see Clinton getting roughly 53.4% to Dole's 44.9%. In that event Clinton still beats Dole by a massive 8 point margin.
I really don't want this to get bogged down in current politics (which of course belong in chat), but I'm interesting in how this WI would impact Trump since he first dipped his toes into the political waters while a member of the Reform Party - it was Reform Governor Jesse Ventura who pushed Trump to run in 2000, and Trump's successful 2016 campaign was likely inspired by Ventura's 1998 campaign for Governor of Minnesota. (A conservative celebrity runs as an outsider who "tells it like it is.") If there is no Reform Party, how does this impact Trump's political career?
I really don't want this to get bogged down in current politics (which of course belong in chat), but I'm interesting in how this WI would impact Trump since he first dipped his toes into the political waters while a member of the Reform Party - it was Reform Governor Jesse Ventura who pushed Trump to run in 2000, and Trump's successful 2016 campaign was likely inspired by Ventura's 1998 campaign for Governor of Minnesota. (A conservative celebrity runs as an outsider who "tells it like it is.") If there is no Reform Party, how does this impact Trump's political career?
SsgtC
Banned
Either he doesn't run or he runs as a Moderate-to-Conservative Democrat and is probably seen as much more Establishment. His best shot, if he's not influenced by Jesse Ventura is probably in 04. Dark horse candidate in 08 if he loses in 04.
The other thing to consider is 1994 — the Republicans in Congress used focus groups of Perot voters to work out points and messaging for the “Contract with America.” There’s gonna be a ‘94 backlash against Clinton regardless but it might not reach the levels it did IOTL. Maybe the Democrats keep the House and/or Senate?
Perot's final voters split relatively evenly between the two major candidates in second preference, but a lot of people at the time believed Perot had a more intangible effect in creating an argument for change and detaching voters' loyalties from Bush during his boom period. In a scenario where Perot never gets involved in the election and it remains a straight one-on-one fight, it probably benefits Bush.
Would Clinton still win Georgia and Montana? Would Bush still win Florida? Would Clinton still win Arizona in 1996?
If Perot was never a thing, would Skip Humphrey have become Governor of Minnesota?
Possibly, and perhaps he becomes a Presidential contender in 2004 or 2008.
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
I think that’s often the perception, that Perot hurt Bush and his staying out of the race would have helped Bush,
but looking at such things as the above stats, it looks like not the case. And we should probably question, not you but what some other fellow citizens believe about the “received wisdom” regarding not “splitting” the ticket and so forth.
Last edited:
Keep in mind that Bush and Perot hated each other long before 1992, so Bush probably can't help blaming Perot for his defeat.
It was only after Perot left the race in July that Clinton began leading Bush in the polls. So maybe, at least in some circles, the narrative would be "Clinton only won because Perot quit" instead of "Clinton only won because Perot split the vote."
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
I’ll give them credit for having a mix of complicated and simple views, just like I have.
Some conservatives viewed Bill Clinton as an illegitimate president.
Also I think because he was relatively young. And also because he had protested the Vietnam War while in the UK, this one I remember conservatives saying.
The following 2017 Washington Post editorial is saying that a goodly percentage of American citizens have believed the last four presidents — Clinton, George W. Bush, Obama, and Trump — to be illegitimate.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...st-four-presidents-as-illegitimate-heres-why/
He should have picked Lowell Weicker to be his running mate. He could not stand the Bushes either if I recall correctly. Incidentally, Perot did endorse George W. Bush in 2000.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histo...ions#1992_United_States_presidential_election
Looking at that table, it's difficult to say. Bush took the lead just after Perot's initial dropping out, but he was already leading Clinton anyway. Clinton then got what must be one of the biggest post-convention bounces ever in July, and maintained a big lead until Perot re-entered the race in September, which didn't seem to impact much on the Clinton-Bush gap.
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
I’m a Wikipedia skeptic because I’ve been an editor for 10+ years and have seen the way the sausage is made!
And I really encourage people to take some version of what I call the “wiki test,” in which you look up an article you already know a lot about, and just see how it does.