1992 United States Presidential Elections

[The ANZAC]

Richard: I agree that Perot was sort of the misfit bastard child created by Bush's ineptitude on policies. I'm just saying if Perot didn't run, Bush would have won plain and simple.

Jolly Rodger: Go here http://www.uselectionatlas.org/ Has the results for all US presidential elections. It has 1992 and in it we can see he took chunks of support from Republican states.

Onejayhawk: IIRC I read in Time magazine that Bush the Elder was actually pro-choice. Am I mistaken?

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by The ANZAC
Onejayhawk: IIRC I read in Time magazine that Bush the Elder was actually pro-choice. Am I mistaken?

He waffled; sounded pro-choice in the '92 race but started moving pro-life after, IIRC.

R.III

 

[JollyRoger]

Originally posted by The ANZAC
Jolly Rodger: Go here http://www.uselectionatlas.org/ Has the results for all US presidential elections. It has 1992 and in it we can see he took chunks of support from Republican states.

Good link. I looked at the states where the margin in the popular vote was less than 5%.

Clinton won CO(8), GA (13), KY(8), LA(9), MT(3), NV(4), NH(4), NJ(15), OH(21) & WI(5). Total of 90 electoral votes.

Bush won AZ(8), FL(25), NC(14), SD(3), TX(32), VA(13). Total of 95 electoral votes.

But let's assume that Bush wins all of these close states.

Clinton 370 minus 90 gets 280 electoral votes.
Bush 168 plus 90 gets 258 electoral votes.

Unless you hold the electoral vote in Florida or at the Supreme Court, Clinton still wins. Speaking of Florida, a strong case can be made that Perot cost Clinton Florida.

I'm sure that Bush wins if you give him all of the states in which the margin of victory was less than 10% or if you give him all of Perot's votes, but those would really be Fantasyland scenarios IMHO. I'll concede some states could have swung in one direction or the other if Perot was not a candidate, but not enough states would have swung to Bush to change the outcome.