2 quick Facts about Bill Clinton's wins in the 90s

[AllentownJake]

1992 43% of the vote

1996 49.2% of the vote

I love Bill but we all need to remember that this country has never cast more than 50.0000000001% of the vote for him. Why do we assume Hillary is going to fair any better than Bill who most can agree is twice the politian she is.

[BootinUp]

1. 2 quick facts - plus a bull load of spin, lol. nt

[Johnny__Motown]

2. Good point, 49.2 against a terrible Dole campaign is rather sad

[Zynx]

38. Considering Clinton was coming back from the '94 fiasco, it was rather good.

Also without Perot, he would have gotten about 53-54%.

[woolldog]

42. wrong!

he would've lost w/o perot in the race.

[Zynx]

43. You're so certain for being so drastically mistaken.

If I take the amount of Perot voters from 1996 who voted for Gore in 2000, about 37%, and say that only that percentage would have voted for Clinton, though it probably would have been more, I get Clinton at about 52.5%. That's a win.

[Nederland]

46. Check your math

You need to add the numbers to the other side too...

[woolldog]

52. Plus I wasn't talking about 96

I was talking about 92.

[Zynx]

54. You're so full of it. If Clinton got 40% of Perot's vote, which is very reasonable. He gets a

majority.

[woolldog]

60. I dont think that's reasonable.

I'd like to see your state by state analysis, including popular vote spreads by state, and percentage of rep/dem vote that Perot received.

[Zynx]

53. That's fine. Clinton still wins. He gets over 50%. Check your math.

It's the same number regardless. It doesn't matter if Dole gets to 45%.

[Nederland]

65. .

[MonkeyFunk]

45. You're totally wrong

but don't let that stop you.

[leftofcool]

3. But, Bill is a racist piece of shit..........

according to Obama supporters so he no his percentage of votes matter.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

47. Help me: "according to Obama supporters so he no his percentage of votes matter."

Assume it makes absolutley no sense to me.

Go!

[woolldog]

55. correction:

he's a race baiting piece of shit.

Carry on...

[Zuiderelle]

4. LOL. I guess I'll take comfort in the fact that Obama supporters are reaching for shit like this.

[Double T]

5. Grasping at straws as their USS obama is sinking into the abyss.

HRC will prevail!

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

13. DUCK!!!!! SNIPER FIRE!!!!!!

[Double T]

17. Don't YOU know the difference between SNIPER FIRE and a...........

ceremonial gun salute? No? Me either!!

[walldude]

20. So you can't tell if someone is trying to honor or shoot you?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Double T]

24. Wouldn't be TOO SMART to wait for the bullets to hit.............

would it? I'm ducking and I'm betting YOU probably would TOO!

[onehandle]

6. Few Democrats in the last fifty years have won with over 50%. Most were under.

But they won.

[theboss]

9. I disagree with your police work

Clinton 49.23 percent of the vote
Clinton: 43 percent of the vote
Carter: 50.08 percent of the vote
Johnson: 61 percent of the vote
Kennedy 49.72 percent of the vote.

We haven't won many national elections period in the last 50 years. But Carter and Johnson cleared 50 percent. And Kennedy did better than Clinton in either of his races.

[onehandle]

10. Two out of five = fewer. One of the two left barely made 50%.

One hit 61% under the benefit of a national crisis.

My police work is fine.

[Levgreee]

12. um, that would be 2 out of 4. Two of those are Clinton, there.

[onehandle]

22. Different elections have completely different dynamics.

1992 and 1996 are different elections.

This election we're running against a tired old man.

We'd win running a yellow dog.

[Levgreee]

27. You said "few Democrats" not "few elections". 2 out of the 4 Dems have managed to get 50+

[onehandle]

32. OH you GOT me! I am SO nailed.

anyway... Democrats have been barely winning for decades.

If we wanted the Democrat with the longest coattails, we should have nominated Edwards.

He was #1 at DU even after he dropped out and polled best nationally for the GE.

oh well... Guess we'll settle for Clinton or Obama.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

40. Carter Got 50.8

It's not like Reagan's 59%, LBJ's 62%, Nixon's 61% or Papa Bush's 54% ... It's the barest of majority...

The last Democrat to got a "real" majority was LBJ and before that FDR...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. And Clinton, FDR, And Woodrow Wilson Were The Only Two Term Dems In The Entire Twentieth Century

~

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. You Do Realize That Carter Only Got 50.1% Of The Vote

And that was only the second time since 1944 a Democrat got a majority of the popular vote...

[splat]

8. Ross Perot -- there were 3 candidates splitting vote in '92

[AllentownJake]

11. Without Perot

There would never be a President Bill Clinton.

[clevbot]

14. w/o nader there would have never been a bush...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. That Case Is True And Infinitely Easier To Make

After all we only need to find 537 votes...

[Zynx]

15. I suggest you look up academic studies on that point.

Exit polling pointed to the fact that Clinton still would have won, just by a smaller margin.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. You'll Have To Give Me A Little More Than An Ipse Dixit Argument

In 1992, Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton defeated incumbent President George Bush. Almost every analysis or reference to the 1992 presidential race claims that Perot's presence on the ballot cost Bush the election. No facts are cited, it is merely asserted.

Perot did a lot of damage, it is true. During the spring primaries in the big industrial states like New York and Pennsylvania, when attention might have been paid to Clinton and former California Governor Jerry Brown as they fought each other and debated a domestic agenda for the new administration, all the media covered was the "undeclared" candidacy of Ross Perot.

< Digression - What is an undeclared candidacy? Especially when there were already several independent parties qualified to be on the ballot, but which were not considered worthy of coverage: The New Alliance Party, LaRouche for President, the Libertarian Party, the Socialist Party, the Prohibition Party and the Independent Voters Party. Why was Perot, who was not running, receiving more coverage than the candidates who were running? The answer is money. The American press is not a free press, it's a bought press. Perot promised that, if he ran, he would spend $100 million in media advertising. The press supported the undeclared candidacy of Ross Perot to fatten their own pocketbooks. The minor party candidates, who had no money to spend on media, could therefore be ignored.>

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.

This same analysis shows that if Perot had not been on the ballot in 1996, Dole would have carried Nevada instead of Clinton. So, by any measure, even admitting that Perot's presence may have cost Bush a few electoral votes in 1992, it was no where near enough to change the outcome of that election, nor the Clinton - Dole contest in 1996.

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

[invictus]

21. The truth is that the Clintons only win by luck or by cheating. n/t

[Zynx]

23. That is such a crock of shit.

I don't even need to address this one.

[Life Long Dem]

25. You just did. And from the looks she has no defense.

[Zynx]

28. You're just making crap up now.

[invictus]

33. Hillary being the Senator from New York where she never lived before is the crock. n/t

[Zynx]

35. That's only an argument Republicans use.

It's funny how both sides turn to right-wing talking points to win arguments.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

26. How Did They Cheat Bush, Dole, And Perot?

~

[invictus]

30. Bill needed Perot to beat Dole and Bush Sr. Hillary needed a safe NY seat to get into the Senate ...

... and Hillary never even lived in New York before her Senate campaign. That, in my opinion, is cheating.

[invictus]

34. Unfortunetly for Hillary, there is no Perot to help her win against Bob Dole II (i.e. McCain) n/t

[Zynx]

36. Clinton would have certainly beaten Dole without Perot. There is no doubt about that.

All studies have shown Clinton would have beaten Bush Sr. too.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

37. "Bill needed Perot to beat Dole and Bush Sr. "

Do you know what an ipse dixit argument is?

The scholarly research does not support your contention...

As for Hillary Clinton she met the residency requirements... Unless she didn't meet the residency requirements I don't see that as cheating...

[Major Hogwash]

58. It's true.

And you can't change history now.

Hillary is not going to be the nominee.
Are you going to vote for Obama?

[BigDDem]

39. Hey Einstein, please let the state of NY know that

she cheated her way to the Senate.

:rofl:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

41. Really

If New Yorkers felt she was a carpet bagging cheater they had two chances to reject her at the polls...

[invictus]

50. Now Hillary is trying to steal delegates and cheat her way to the nomination.

This isn't cheating?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5250777

[paulk]

44. posting that over and over doesn't magically make it true

from the Daily Howler -

TRIPPED AT TAPPED: We constantly hear it on kooky-con radio, but there it was in yesterday’s Tapped! In the latest installment of “Spin Marches On,” Garance Franke-Ruta typed this:
FRANKE-RUTA (6/28/05): President Bush has had persistently low poll numbers for some time...Recently, he's received his lowest ratings yet. Still, he's polling in the low- to mid-40s, and it's worth recalling that his father had a job approval rating of only 34 percent in mid-1992, before his electoral loss to Bill Clinton. Even with such very low Bush Sr. numbers, Clinton was only able to garner 43 percent of the vote nationwide, and might well have lost the race had it not been for Ross Perot's third-party candidacy.
Omigod! Clinton “might well have lost the race had it not been for Ross Perot!” It’s recited like scripture on kooky-con radio. Now, Tapped is reciting it too.

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 data were widely reported—except in the Washington Times, of course. Which brings us to the heart of our question—the question we’ve asked for seven years.

Where does spin come from? In today’s world, spin often comes from kooky-con hacks—and ends up getting recited by liberals. No, the Washington Times never forced its readers to see the data about Perot voters. But soon, the paper was printing letters from kooky-con fabulists—this bit of invention, for example:
LETTER, WASHINGTON TIMES (11/14/92): There is no doubt that Ross Perot drew voters who would otherwise have voted for one or the other of the traditional party candidates. Judging from exit polls and from observing (as best one could) the ethnic and generational makeup of Perot supporters as they appeared on televison, a reasonable conclusion would be that Mr. Perot drew more from Mr. Bush than from Mr. Clinton, by a ratio of at least 6-to-4 (though the would-have-been-Bushers in the Perot column could have been a good deal higher).
But for the purpose of discussion, let's use the 6-4 ratio and divide up the Perot vote and apply it state by state to Mr. Bush and Mr. Clinton.

Thus, we see that Mr. Perot cost Mr. Bush the following states: Ohio, Wisconsin, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Nevada, Montana, Kentucky, Georgia and Colorado with a total of 87 electoral votes. Mr. Clinton still wins in the Electoral College, but his margin there shrinks to 283 to 255.

In terms of popular vote, Mr. Clinton ends up with roughly 51.4 million to 49.7 million for Mr. Bush, a much tighter contest than was shown in the results with Mr. Perot included. And if my 6-4 breakdown was overly generous to Mr. Clinton—as I suspect it is—we would have come very close to a dead heat or a Bush victory.

J— R— B—
Arlington

The writer was drawing a “reasonable conclusion” based on his observations of “the ethnic and generational makeup of Perot supporters as they appeared on televison!” Yep! Based upon careful TV viewing (and a bit of wishful thinking), the writer decided that, absent Perot, we might have seen a flat-out Bush win. The exit polling said that Perot could have affected only one state—Ohio. But the writer “suspected” a 6-4 ratio would be quite good to use. Soon, Wisconsin, New Jersey, Georgia and Colorado were falling to Pappy Bush too.

Even with all this confabulation, JRB only said it would have been a close race absent Perot. Clinton might have won anyway, he conceded. Soon, though, other such analysts abandoned such scruples. For years, it has been conventional wisdom on kooky-con radio that Ross Perot cost George Bush the election. Now, we get to read this drivel right in the pages of Tapped.

Where does spin come from? This matter provides a good case study. To the extent that we have actual data, there is no indication—none whatever—that Clinton would have lost to Bush if Perot hadn’t been in the race. But so what? Within weeks, kooky-cons began to conjure, and their pleasing stories quickly spread. And uh-oh! Fiery liberals kept hearing their story. Thirteen years later, they repeat the tale too.

We hate to pick on Franke-Ruta; indeed, we believe we saw this claim in another liberal forum in the past few weeks, although we can’t remember where. But this episode shows us several things about our modern World of Spin. First, kooky-con fabulists never tire of inventing pleasing stories—pleasing claims which spread quite widely,recited by kooky-cons everywhere. And second: For reasons completely unknown to us, many of our fiery young liberals still aren’t “hip” to this part of our culture. We’ve told them daily, for the past seven years—but some of them still resist such “jive.” Calm down, grandpa, they indignantly say—and soon, they’re reciting kooky-con tales themselves. For years, Rush had to lead the parade on this tale. Now, he has Tapped out there helping him.

Young and foolish, they’d rather recite this kooky cant than accept our incomparable teachings. When will our fiery young liberal elites get a grip on the world they now live in?

JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS: Applying his 6-4 voter breakdown—a ratio excessively generous to Clinton—JRB conjured the popular vote had Perot not been in the race (see above). In his first review of the polling, Dionne tried to do the same thing:
DIONNE (11/8/92): In the nationwide popular vote, Clinton's margin over Bush would have been about the same without Perot in the contest.
In the actual vote, Clinton won 43.7 million popular votes to 38.2 million for Bush and 19.2 million for Perot.
According to the VRS estimate, without Perot in the race, Clinton would have won 51.4 million to 45.6 million for Bush. Total turnout would have been smaller, because many Perot supporters said they would not have voted if the independent had not run.

“Clinton’s margin would have been about the same?” How did Dionne make this glaring mistake? Simple! That letter hadn’t yet appeared in the Times, so Dionne had no access to the writer’s observations about “the ethnic and generational makeup of Perot supporters as they appeared on televison.” In short, E. J. jumped to conclusions without all the data. Thirteen years later, right there in Tapped, Franke-Ruta avoids his mistake.

[MonkeyFunk]

48. Nope

absolutey not true.

[endarkenment]

29. Perot took votes from both sides.

There is no strong argument that Perot affected the outcome. Subtract the Perot vote and Clinton has two convincing victories over Bush and Dole.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. People Forget Perot Quit The 92 Race And Then Re-Entered It

During that time Clinton was beating Bush by twenty or so points...

[mikekohr]

64. Perot Sucked Up The "RADICAL MIDDLE" and denied the Darksiders Running Room

Excellent example of the critical importance of attracting moderates and independents. 37% of Americans identify as Independent, 36% as Democrats, and 27% as Republicans, according to Pew Research. Perot pulled 20% in 1992 (9% in 1996) taking most of the moderate and Independent vote. That left Wild Bill with the Democratic base, which is always a little bigger than the Republican base.

Without the "middle" of the electorate we can not win the White House with our base alone. We have two candidates left. One energizes the youth vote and pulls substantial numbers of Independents and a significant number of "swing" Republican voters. The other candidate's strength is in Democratic party loyalists. One is poised for victory in November, the other is going to struggle, in spite of the most favorable political winds at our backs in 70 years.

Any one that denies these facts is whistling past the graveyard.

mike kohr

[bevoette]

66. i don't deny it

i voted Perot both times...although i never considered myself "RADICAL" :)

[mikekohr]

67. Not An Insult

"The Radical Middle," was term used by pundits to describe many of the people that flocked to Perot in 1992. "The Radical Middle," was a term that I consider a compliment as it was noted to apply to moderate voters that were demanding substantive change in Washington and in the political culture. Just the type of people flocking to the message of Senator Barack Obama today.

mike kohr

OBAMA -believe-

[DemzRock]

49. Not applicable to any argument anywhere. Ross Perot 's 3rd party bid made this...

a different kind of race.

You could argue that Clinton might have lost...

Or that he might have gotten well over 50% if Perot wasn't there.

No way to know unless you have a time machine and can talk Perot out of running.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

51. Without Perot, Bill wouldn't have been prez and Hillary wouldn't be running for it.

Not to mention the help given by a walking corpse candidate in '96.

[surfermaw]

56. A southern --fatherless man winning is a great leap

So take that and run with it......

[surfermaw]

57. If Obama looses this race, it will be because of his own people

nothing more nothing less, on this board you are acting like idiots, instead of trying to get him votes you are trying to run them off... I have said many times on this board, honey catches flies more quickly than vinegar, surely your parents told you that as a young adult.

[blm]

63. Jackson Stephens groomed that 'fatherless' man to protect GHWBush and cronies

including Stephens.

And guess what? Bill did - all through the 90s and beyond. Bill was so thorough about it he never even MENTIONS being handed the BCCI report when he took office, let alone all its outstanding matters he managed to deep-six for Poppy Bush and Jackson Stephens.

That worked out WELL for this country in the long run, eh?

[calicat]

59. Let's talk about all the others that have won since Carter.

Oh.

[book_worm]

61. Dukakis got 47% in '88 better than Clinton in '92 and not far behind his '96 total.

[knixphan]

62. O-man can break that record.

[terrell9584]

68. and this would matter if...

we elected Presidents exclusively by popular vote. We don't though. A recount in Ohio probably would have supplied a Kerry victory in that state and thus the nation.

He still would have lost the national popular vote but would have had the White House via electoral vote, and I don't think there is a single person on here that can argue that our country would be worse off if this had happened.

The only numbers that matter from '92 and '96 are these.

92: 370-168
96: 379-159

Clinton has been the only Democratic nominee post 1968 to win more than 300 EV's