I knew I wasn't going to get to leave this one alone. Here are synopses of my prior posts on this issue:
1. When Ross dropped out temporarily in Sept/Oct '92, Clinton passed Bush and moved into FIRST place. During the bulk of '92, Clinton was in THIRD behind Bush and Perot. When Perot came back in, Clinton held on but his lead shrunk. People continue to think that Perot helped Clinton because they think that Ross Perot in '92 was running against Clinton, AS HE IS KNOWN TODAY. But the Clinton in '92 was not perceived in the same manner as today.
2. Funny about that exit poll data...I looked at every state in 1992 and those that were slam dunks for Bush, I gave to him (I didn't even give Clinton a single vote if Perot had not been in the race)
I focused on ONLY the states Clinton won in '92 and realized that Perot's exit from the race could have only made a difference if Bush had gotten upwards to 70+ % of the TOTAL Perot vote. Look at the states Clinton won in 92, look at the margin of victory and you will see my point here. Moreover, in 1992, Clinton was indeed getting some of the Perot type of voter cause back then he looked like a Populist. Remember back then, not today, back then.
Two thirds of the Perot voters were totally new voters, verified by polling data, so there is NO way Bush could have gotten 60, 70% of the entire Perot vote when such a larger number of them admitted that they would not have voted.
Note this next sentence of mine. It was from a post I made on NOVEMBER 2, 2000...FIVE DAYS BEFORE THE ELECTION.
Ralph Nader's 5% may have a larger impact on the election than Perot's excellent showing in 1992!!
Point in fact, the '92 vote had approx 10 to 12mm voters that didn't vote in '88 or in '96. Those 12 mm were primarily Perot voters. It is not a stretch to conclude that the vast majority of the Perot voters would not have voted in '92 had he not been running...simply because most of them didn't vote in '88 and half of them didn't vote in '96. In fact, in '96 it was Perot voters who stayed home...a lot of them, like over 10mm. Anyway, of the residual voters who went with Perot in '92, Clinton would have still gotten a chunk of those, since Perot's anger was always more directed towards Bush.
The upshot is that unless 70% of ALL the '92 Perot voters had voted for Bush in key states, Clinton would have still received the majority of the electoral votes. Moreover, since more than half of the Perot voters wouldn't have voted were he not in the race, it would have been impossible for Bush to have gotten 70% of the ENTIRE Perot vote.
This is like the 6th time I have posted this on SI.
TG |
