Ross Perot DID NOT Cost George H.W. Bush the White House in '92

[wyldwolf]

One of the great political myths of our time is that the candidacy of Ross Perot aided Bill Clinton in winning the White House and cost George H.W. Bush the presidency.

The myth is spread far and wide by both the leftwing and the rightwing. Although it has been debunked on DU and other sources countless times, it does pop back up now and again. In fact, people cling to it.

Here are some actual stats.

From the Daily Howler:

Readers, where does spin come from? “Clinton won because of Perot” provides a good case study.

Let’s start with some actual data. If Perot hadn’t been in the 92 race, would Bush the elder have beaten Clinton? The exit polling was abundantly clear, and it was widely reported. On November 8, 1992—five days after the election—E. J. Dionne penned a first report in the Post. Headline: “Perot Seen Not Affecting Vote Outcome:”

DIONNE (11/8/92): Ross Perot's presence on the 1992 presidential ballot did not change the outcome of the election, according to an analysis of the second choices of Perot supporters.
The analysis, based on exit polls conducted by Voter Research & Surveys (VRS) for the major news organizations, indicated that in Perot's absence, only Ohio would have have shifted from the Clinton column to the Bush column. This would still have left Clinton with a healthy 349-to-189 majority in the electoral college.

And even in Ohio, the hypothetical Bush "margin" without Perot in the race was so small that given the normal margin of error in polls, the state still might have stuck with Clinton absent the Texas billionaire.

The VRS polled more than 15,000 voters. On November 12, Dionne provided more details about Perot voters:

DIONNE (11/12/92): In House races, Perot voters split down the middle: 51 percent said they backed Republicans, 49 percent backed Democrats. In the presidential contest, 38 percent of Perot supporters said they would have supported Clinton if Perot had not been on the ballot and 37 percent said they would have supported Bush.

An additional 6 percent of Perot voters said they would have sought another third-party candidate, while 14 percent said they would not have voted if Perot had not run.

We all know exit polls are imperfect. But these are the actual available data about the preferences of Perot voters. Nor was this exit poll kept secret. One day after the election, the AP sent the news far and wide. (Headline: “Perot's Voters Would Have Split In a Two-Way Race”):

ASSOCIATED PRESS (11/4/92): Exit polls suggest Ross Perot hurt George Bush and Bill Clinton about equally.

The Voter Research and Surveys poll, a joint project of the four major television networks, found 38 percent of Perot voters would have voted for Clinton and 37 percent would have voted for Bush if Perot had not been on the ballot. Fifteen percent said they would not have voted, and 6 percent listed other candidates.

The remaining parts of the article explore where the "Perot cost Bush the Election" spin may have come from:

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh062905.html

Joshua Leinsdorf, from the Institute of Election Analysis, breaks it down further:

But did Perot defeat Bush? First, look at the turnout. Perot got 19,660,450 votes. The total turnout was more than 13 million higher than in 1988. So, even though Perot got a lot of votes, 13 million of those voters didn't vote in 1988. Clinton ran 3.1 million votes ahead of Dukakis, but Bush received 9.7 million fewer votes than four years earlier. The two party vote fell by 7 million. So, Perot only took 7 million votes from the two parties combined. If Perot had not been in the race, would those 7 million Perot voters who voted for Bush and Dukakis in 1988 have voted for Bush by a sufficient margin for him to overcome Clinton's 3.1 million vote lead. Those 7 million Perot voters would have had to favor Bush over Clinton by 5 to 2. Or, even if all 19.6 million Perot voters had voted for one of the major party candidates, they would have had to favor Bush by a 58% to 42% margin to overcome clinton's lead and tie the race. Was this likely in view of the fact that the other 84 million voters were favoring Clinton by 7%, 53.5% to Bush's 46.5%?

The 1992 presidential election was an analyst's dream. Usually, the presidential candidate runs far ahead of the rest of the ticket. Perot's presence in the presidential race combined with an absence of running mates for lesser offices meant that Clinton and Bush ran behind their respective party's nominees for Governor, Senator and the House. Consequently, it was easy to follow Perot's voters as they voted for other offices. They voted for Democratic and Republican Governor, Senator and House of Representative candidates in sufficient numbers to give them higher vote totals than Clinton and Bush.

This assumes that all Clinton's supporters voted for the other Democratic candidates and all Bush's supporters voted for the Republican candidates for Governor, Senator and the House. Since Republican candidates for other offices received more votes than Bush, and Democratic candidates for other offices received more votes than Clinton, this is a statistically valid assumption. The higher vote totals for the non-presidential candidates had to come from Perot's voters.

In the Governor's races, Perot's voters cast 18% of their ballots for the Republican candidates; 56% of their ballots for Democratic candidates, 17% for independent candidates, and 8% did not bother to vote for Governor. If Perot's voters had voted for Bush and Clinton in the same proportion that the voted for the Republican and Democratic candidates for Governor, Clinton's lead would have increased by 7.5 million votes. In the Senate races, Perot's supporters voted 27% for the Republican candidates, 24% for the Democratic candidates, 23% for the independent candidates, and 24% skipped the Senate races entirely. (This does not include states that did not have Senate races.) In the House races, Perot's voters cast 22% of their ballots for Republican candidates, 19% for Democratic candidates, 18% for independent candidates, and 40% did not vote in House races.

Perot's voters voted overwhelmingly for Democratic Governor candidates, and only marginally in favor of the Republican candidates for the House and Senate. Perot's voters favored Republican Senate candidates by 2.28%, and Republican House candidates by 2.69%. Because Perot's voters were only 1/5th of the total, that translates into about another 500,000 votes or 0.5% for bush if they had voted in a two way presidential race the same way they voted for the Senate and House. That is about 1/7th of the margin by which Bush lost.

If Perot cost Bush the election, the proof must lie somewhere else. On a statistical basis, it's essentially impossible to make a case for Perot costing Bush the 1992 presidential election. The election results show that Perot took many voters from Clinton among his supporters who demonstrated a low interest in politics by voting only for President and Governor, while taking marginally from Bush among those who demonstrated more commitment by casting ballots for Congress. This analysis can be further confirmed by comparing the 1992 and 1996 results where Perot's vote dropped by 10 million compared to 1992. By comparing the vote totals for Clinton in both years with Bush's and Dole's (assuming Dole voters and Bush voters were the same voters) it is possible to conclude that in 1992 Perot's presence on the ballot cost Bush: Montana, North Carolina, Colorado and Georgia. However, Perot cost Clinton: Florida and Arizona in 1992. So, in 1992, Perot cost Clinton 32 electoral votes while costing Bush 37 electoral votes. Bush lost by 100 electoral votes, so 5 more would not have given him victory.

http://www.leinsdorf.com/perot.htm

[0007]

1. Interesting. But it is time to move on, can't get stuck on the past.

2000 is more interesting.

[wyldwolf]

2. does that apply all subjects?

[HereSince1628]

3. I had no idea this was a great political myth of my times.

I have completely missed that one.

[CTyankee]

10. Yep. I had that thrown in my face

by my repub. BIL who is a rabid repub. They like to do this just to show the dems that Clinton was no great shakes in 1992 and "he didn't get a majority." To which I replied, "well, look at it this way, more people voted for Clinton and for Perot combined than for your guy. A plurality is also a win."

[HereSince1628]

12. Ah, repooplickin talking point, I suspect that's how I missed it.

[AtomicKitten]

30. um, that meme is often reiterated here at DU

by the usual Dem-haters.

[tritsofme]

4. I don't think Perot cost Bush the election.

But he did change the electoral landscape so greatly that we will never know what the race would have looked like without him, and simply asking people who they would have voted for in November ignores the effect that Perot's year long stint on the national stage had on the political debate in the country.

After 12 years of Reagan/Bush people were ready for change.

But it is interesting to ponder what the country would look like today if Bush won in 1992. Obviously there would be no Gingrich Revolution in 1994 since they'd be 14 years into a stale administration, and it is very likely that Bush's spawn would not be sitting in the WH today either.

[TriMetFan]

19. Our Nation would have gone into

a huge recession or depression. So yep you are right we would not have had any of those things, but I cant' think of any FDR in our party that could get our Nation out of a hole that huge. :shrug: T. Kennedy?

[vi5]

5. His big issue was being Anti NAFTA which appealed to labor...

And the labor unions tend to vote Democratic. It's that simply. Perot was not vehemently pro life or pro death penalty or pro military or any of the other things normally attributed to republicans.

[Aaaargh]

6. You're right -- exit polls are "imperfect" and prove nothing

The stats about governor's races thrown in here are also just speculative, and basically dishonest, games with numbers.

Ralph Nader, BTW, plays similar number games, justifying his 2000 run by claiming that his name on the ballot brought in progressive voters who would have otherwise stayed home, and that those folks also voted for some Democratic candidates in other races and threw some wins that way. That, too, is a very big 'maybe.' Nader has also cited exit polling data from 2000 which allegedly 'shows' that a big proportion of Nader voters would have picked Bush Jr. over Gore. But in that case, would they REALLY, or were they making a grandstanding assertion about how much they disliked moderate Democrats? I well remember flaming Naderites in 2000 swearing that 'Gore is worse than Bush!'

What we who actually followed the '92 campaign do know is that Perot's candidacy took a whole lot of steam out of Bush's prospects. Not long before he got into the race, the 'cw' was that Bush was unbeatable -- which is what kept Al Gore out of the race. If Gore had run, it's likely that he would have taken a lot of support away from Clinton.

But Perot was soon AHEAD of all the competition in the polls, which upended the whole race. The MSM, which had been toying with Perot to inject a little horserace into what promised to be a dull campaign, then turned hard against him, digging up a lot of stories intended to make him look unreliable or even crazy (maybe he was, but the intention of the anti-Perot reportage was clear.)

Also, Perot pulled out RIGHT BEFORE the Democratic convention, which was perfect timing to give Clinton a boost, and it did. From there, Clinton was able to keep his momentum going 'til election day.

The numbers that matter still stand: Perot, despite much media demonization and the fact that he'd abruptly left the race and then returned, got almost 20% of the votes. Those votes can't be 'transferred' to either Clinton or Bush.

In fact, the major myth propagated on this forum about the '92 race is that Clinton's victory proved that the DLC agenda has strong appeal for voters. If you want to look at polling data throughout the race, check out where Clinton was when he was pushing something resembling the DLC line, and how much better he did when he started sounding a lot more like a traditional Democrat, and the DLC leadership started wailing that he was betraying them by engaging in 'class warfare.'

[salin]

7. due to the later policy debacle - it is largely forgotten

how much momentum Clinton got by pushing the issue of health care back in the 92 race.

[HawkerHurricane]

8. Am I the only one who remembers February '92?

Buchanan (Patrick) beat Bush in the New Hampshire primary.
Bush moved right because of that.
Perot jumped into the race, taking votes from Bush in the 'center-right' catagory that Bush lost because he reacted to Buchanan.
Perot voters wanted a change. If Perot hadn't been in the race, they would have voted Clinton or stayed home.

[LincolnMcGrath]

9. Bush 1 ignored the American-Taliban

[TriMetFan]

20. Yes up to a point.

[Aaaargh]

34. WRONG - Bush won New Hampshire in '92

"1992 New Hampshire Presidential Primary, February 18, 1992: Republican Results

George Bush 92,274 53.2%
Patrick J. Buchanan 65,109 36.5%"
http://www.politicallibrary.org/TallState/1992rep.html

You're thinking of '96, when Buchanan beat DOLE in NH. Buchanan did better than expected in '92, given Bush's high standing just a short time before, but he still lost by a good measure. THAT was the story.

Bush didn't lose in the general election in '92 because he "moved right," that's complete BS. On what issues did Bush REALLY move right? He hadn't been right before on the trade issues both Perot and Buchanan focused on?

Bush was SMEARED by the right, partly because he'd raised taxes when he'd pledged not to, partly because of his New World Order' rhetoric, but also because he came across as a dweeby, nervous, out-if-it kind of guy, and didn't appeal personally to to a lot of voters (he should have affected a 'manly' Texas accent like his doofus son did later, that works for a lot of stupid people.) Then there was the stagnant economy of the early '90's. Then, the Republican convention in the summer was a disaster which made Bush look like a captive of a crazed rightwing party which didn't really support him.

Overall, this made Bush look WEAK, a factor which hurt him with both rightwing and 'centrist' voters.

Perot's 'official' announcement came a couple days after the NH primary that year, but did not come out of the blue, by any means. There was a buzz about a Perot candidacy before NH.

So you say: "Perot voters wanted a change. If Perot hadn't been in the race, they would have voted Clinton or stayed home."

Come off it. NOBODY wants just ANY "change," that's nonsense. Perot's '92 votes remain votes for Perot, not for Clinton or for Bush.

[LincolnMcGrath]

11. We certainly know exit polls are always spot on. lol

Let me see if I get this straight,

Perot's 19% IS NOT a spoiler

Nader's .38% IS a a spoiler

:shrug:


Why are opinion piece a sort "gold standard" with you?


"Out of curiosity, I wrote all 50 Secretaries of State plus the District of Columbia asking for the election results. The information that came back in the mail made me realize that the people's voice is being ignored in political analysis. This started me analyzing election results, the fruits of which are on the website."

[radio4progressives]

18. for someone who doesn't even know his own district well enough to "read"

the pulse of his own district, well.. enuf said..

opinion pieces from operatives and functionaries are not the measure of truth or reality. it's generally called: P O L I T I C A L - S P I N

[LincolnMcGrath]

25. True Dat!

:hi:

[AX10]

13. In a two way race....

Clinton may have recieved 53% and Bush, 46.5% with the other .5% going to other candidates.

[Mend]

14. Perot mocked bush in his speeches...unlike Nader who mocked

Gore. We had a rich Texas republican making hash of bush and his policies and it helped stop the right-wing noise machine. I remember Perot's speeches and I think he did help Clinton win by what he said. No one did that to bush 2.

[karynnj]

16. I totally agree with you

Perot's biggest affect was likely not siphoning off more Bush votes than Clinton votes, but in altering the entire race.

Perot mostly hit Bush (as you say he made hash of him) and at one point, Clinton was number 3 in a three way race. When Perot pulled out, claiming the Bush people were after his family and even tried to ruin his daughter's wedding, his votes definely went to Clinton. When he re-entered the race, most of those votes stayed with Clinton, because many who bought his anti-Bush rhetoric thought he was crazy at that point.

Looking at the exit polls misses those people who rejected Bush partially on Perot's arguments and ended up voting Clinton. (It can be seen looking at the polls for the summer and fall of 1992.

[trotsky]

15. Thanks for this.

Great resource to shoot down another false right-wing talking point.

[SaveElmer]

17. Myth used to debunk Clinton as legitimate...

Usually in conjunction with an argument over the DLC. Opponents usually cite the failure of the DLC in winning recent elections. And when it is pointed out that Clinton, Gore, and Kerry are all DLC, and if you hold to the notion that the last 2 Presidential elections were stolen, a DLC member has won the last four elections, anti-DLC DU'ers inevitably trot out Perot to debunk Clinton's victories.

As usual wyldwolf brings the discussion back to reality with facts!!!

[arendt]

21. We need a separate group for polemicists...

Why are you wasting bandwidth with this divisive, one-note,
revisionist campaign of yours?

You try to prove the unprovable, speculate on the unverifiable,
etc. This entire "analysis" is nothing but cherry-picking and spin.
The other side of this debate can produce equally credible "analysis".
The whole thing is like medieval church theologians quoting the
Bible at each other over some arcane dogma. A total waste of time.

I already wasted my time once. I'm not biting again. But,
I still say your tactics are purely divisive. Tell us why its
so important to prove that Bill Clinton WAS (he certainly no longer
is) such a great Democrat. I suspect the answer is that this nothing
more than a stalking horse thread to bash Hillary-bashers. I am
so sick of politicos and their flacks.

There I've had my say. You can preach to your choir all you want.

Goodbye

arendt

[SaveElmer]

22. The answer is simple...

Inevitably, in any discussion of the DLC on this board...critics of the organization point to the failed electoral strategy of the DLC. In rebutting this point, many point to the success of Bill Clinton, DLC member elected President. Usually it is pointed out that if the last two elections were stolen, as is CW on this board, the last 4 elections were won by a DLC member.

DLC critics, unwilling to accept this, always trot out the "Perot cost Bush the Election" scenario. Wyldwolf has simply presented evidence to the contrary. If you, as you say "can produce equally credible 'analysis'," which points to the opposite why don't you send along a link for perusal?

[LincolnMcGrath]

26. Okay, show us one thread where any DLC critic 'trots out'

"Perot cost Bush the Election"

[SaveElmer]

29. Since my posts get deleted if I link to another member...

I will just have to post the verbatim comments...do a simple search on Perot and you can find these...these are all threads related to the effectiveness of the DLC or to Clinton's alleged lack of validity as a winning candidate.

"Oh please. Ross Perot gave us Clinton."

"The fact is DLC has been poison for the Democrats. We continue to lose as our candidates tack right. Clinton was an aberration--and his win against Bush was probably made possible by Perot. "

"He won because of Perot."

"We all forget that Clinton didn't win in a head to head contest. Clinton/Perot coalition won"

"Clinton could not have beaten Daddy Bush in '92 without Perot"

"Forget the 1992 and 1996 elections.
It seems that alot of people have looked at these two elections and have seen major Democratic possibilities, but few seem to remember a crucial factor in Clinton's wins: in every election since then, there have been no viable third-party Presidential candidates."

"Clintons/DLC are dinosaurs. They are living in the past. What they fail to realize is that Clinton in 1992 did as well as Dukakis in 1988, and Clinton in 1996 did as well as Gore (2000) and Kerry (2004). The reason he won was simple: Perot. They hate to admit this, but it's true."

" can run up, down, and sideways arguing about how Slick Willy won off moderates, and ignore the influence of Perot in the 1992 election"

"...is Perot split the vote 3 ways so that Clinton could slide in with 43%. Clinton didn't get 50% in his 2nd run, so let's give Carville what he deserves - not much."

"Clinton may have won because of Ross Perot
Perot syphoned off enough conservative votes to keep Poppy from getting a majority."

There are more...this took all of 5 minutes!!!

[Lone_Wolf]

23. I've always thought that Perot ran as a populist to take votes away from

the Dems... Perot and Bush ran in the same circles (the intelligence community and defense industry)

[Mend]

27. Perot stood up strongly for abortion rights and said the government

had no business in our private lives. He drew away the "normal" economic republicans from the religious wackos and broke the repuke coalition that is now back together. I remember his speech on abortion as if it was yesterday. He waved his hand as if the whole thing was a housefly....and sounded very practical.

[Doctor_J]

24. When all else fails, invoke Bill Clinton's name

and when it gets REALLY bad, dig as far inot the past as you can.

:boring:

[wisteria]

28. Wasn't there another candidate running against Bush? Forbes or

Buchanian?

[Massacure]

31. People should be allowed to vote for whoever they want

whether they are third party or not. People who think otherwise are stupid and base.

[LynneSin]

32. You only need to look at the 96 returns to know this is true

More people actually voted in 92 than in 96 and the net loss of voters all came from Perot (who also ran in 96).

To be honest, a large chunk of people who voted for Perot were probably not going to vote in the first place. When Perot pandered out and became kinda creepy in 96 he basically costed himself about 8million votes

[dsc]

33. I think it is hard to make all the assumptions made in this article

First, the idea that all Clinton voters voted for Democratic candidates down ticket and all Bush voters did that for Republicans. I have no earthly idea why that can be necessarily said. Second, elections aren't static. Perot ran an anti Bush campaign. It was anti Bush in both tone and substance. It had the effect of making Bush ran a two sided campaign just like Gore had to do. Third, Perot had virtually no minority support at all, and his supporters were more male than female. I find it very hard to believe, especially in Southern states, that didn't add up to a largely Republican block of voters.

[Awsi Dooger]

35. Just use common sense

I'm a stats guy but here you don't even need it. Bush had an abysmal approval rating, hovering around 40%. Voters who chose an offbeat candidate like Ross Perot were not going to default in huge percentage to an unpopular out-of-touch incumbent if it had been a two-way race. Not even worth discussing and anyone who projects Bush as a two-way winner is an incomparable lunatic.

[wyldwolf]

37. someone projected Bush as a two-way winner ?

[nickshepDEM]

36. Ive read this before. The only legitimate claim is Daddy Bush

had to fend off two oppenents while Clinton was only running against Bush.

[depakid]

38. And posts like the original one

Completely underestimate that dynamic, which can't be described by "poll" numbers. I suspect that Perot caused a lot of the so called "Reagan Democrats" to question their relatively newfound affiliation with the Republican party. That's a qualitative shift- and once Perot dropped out, those people were less inclined to go back to that party- after already having taken the step away. That sort of phenomena is WELL documented in behavioral science.

Once Perot dropped out and jumped back in, a good many people were once again disaffected- and continued their transition toward Clinton.

Had it been a one on one race- like Bush v. Dukakis, there may well have been a different result.

Personally, I'm pretty sure that there would have- which, incidently- undermines the DLC's one (and only claim to fame.

They've lost every single congressional election for the party ever since. 6 in a row. And soon to be a 7th. That, I'm also reasonably certain of at this point.