<<If you were following the race, it was obvious that most of the Perot vote was anti Bush, anti-Washington. Those same Perot voters voted Republican 2 years later and created the takeover of Congress, for the same "lets fix Washington" reason.>>
Precisely, you said it yourself.The Perot people were anti-Bush, anti-Washington. You're own statement supports my theory as good as I could. Now, tell me how in '92 those Perot voters would have gone 85 Bush/15 Clinton if Perot weren't in the race???
Most of those people played switch with their thumbs after the '92 election. You keep thinking that Perot was running against the liberal Clinton...HE WAS RUNNING AGAINST THE 1992 BILL CLINTON, DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP COUNCIL, MODERATE...a totally different person than you believe Clinton morphed into or is. Both Clinton and Perot were competing for the same voters in '92. Clinton was never talked about as a liberal in '92 and that is absolutely provable. Read news clips how the Dems finally got wise and stopped nominating the liberal side of the party.
Moreover, look at the polling data after Perot exited the race temporarily...the Bush people cried after Perot exited because they knew Clinton would pick up enough of those Perot people after Ross was out. No less than Ed Rollins and Lynn Nofziger commented how they felt that once Perot exited the race(albeit temporarily, it still cut his share after he got back in), it seriously impaired Bush's chances. Before Ross left the race, Perot was drawing around 33+/- % of the votes. When he got back in, many of his supporters defected and he wound up getting 19%...where the hell do you think that 14% went to??? Bush went from low 30s when Perot was fully in to upper 30s after Perot got back in after quitting. Clinton went from low 30s to FORTY THREE PERCENT.
You would have to be brain dead not to see that Clinton got a very decent chunk of those Perot voters who defected from Perot. At a minimum, he got at least half, but more like 60+ %. Your 15% figure for Clinton's share is fantasy. Maybe true for an election NOW, but not in 1992.
Years later, some Republicans come on the tube and revise history and whine about how Perot's presence hurt them in '92...but it doesn't change the reality. The people attracted to Perot in 1992 were NOT Bush people, they were prior NON-VOTERS who wanted CHANGE and back in '92,whether you choose to believe it or not, Bill Clinton, as well as Perot, was perceived as an agent of change.
TG |
