A pernicious Right-Wing myth one sees on DU almost every day

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

One of the more pernicious right-wing lies that shows up on DU with some regularity is that Bill Clinton only won in 1992 and 1996 because of Ross Perot's strong third party candidacies. This is a remarkably flimsy and self-rebutting claim that is only "out there" as the result of an Orwellian RW rewriting-history project and it is shocking that anyone on DU subscribes to it. It is on par with "Saddam moved his WMD to Syria."

1992 Popular vote CLINTON 44,909,806 (43.0%) BUSH 39,104,550 (37.4%) PEROT 19,743,821 (18.8%)

If Perot wasn't on the ballot Bush would have needed to win 2/3 of Perot voters. (To reach 50% Bush needed an extra 12.6%. Perot got 18.8%. So Bush needed 67% of the Perot vote.)

No exit polling, pre-election polling, post election polling or non-partisan analysis has ever suggested Bush would have carried Perot voter 2:1. The Bush-friendliest data suggests the Perot vote would have split roughly down the middle; 52-48, 54-46 etc..

The fact that Bush had an approval rating of about 30% helps show the absurdity of supposing he could have reached 50% in any scenario.

Bill Clinton had the largest convention bounce in Gallup history because Perot dropped out of the race during the Democratic convention. Since we "know" Perot took support primarily from Bush, why did most of his support go to Clinton when he dropped out? (Later in the race Perot jumped back in.)

And if anyone is thinking, "That's just the popular vote," Clinton won the electoral college 370 to 168. So the theory requires us to believe that Perot accounted for keeping over 100 electoral votes from Bush. (Perot probably did deliver Montana for Clinton, so that's 3EV. Not sure where the other 98 come from.)

The claim that Clinton only won in 1996 because of Perot is even more hilarious. Clinton won the popular vote 49.24% to Bob Dole's 40.71%. (EV 379-159) So the theory is that Perot voters would have broken for Dole better than 17:1.

Put another way, this RW theory sometimes promulgated on DU assumes that Dole was more popular among Perot voters than Obama is among African-American voters today. Good luck with that.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

1. Thanks for that

Well worth remembering!

Does the same sort of analysis hold true in 2000, as well? Was Gore done in more by his own party members than by Nader? How many Dems cast Nader ballots?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

3. IIRC, at least 8% of Florida Dems voted for Bush.

So that number swamps whatever Nader got in FL.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

13. Looked it up: 12% of FL Dems voted for Bush

"Twelve percent of Florida Democrats (over 200,000) voted for Republican George Bush"
-San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 9, 2000

Even if none of the factors mentioned above had happened, the votes of Florida voters themselves show that Ralph Nader was not responsible for George W. Bush’s presidency. If one percent of these Democrats had stuck with their own candidate, Al Gore would easily have won Florida and become president. In addition, half of all registered Democrats did not even bother going to the polls and voting.

http://www.cagreens.org/alameda/city/0803myth/myth.html

[Usrename]

26. They would have just spoiled another 50,000 ballots.

Florida was rigged. Just like they used to do back in the day, before the Voter's Rights Act.

[geckosfeet]

2. In other words, even if you divide the Perot votes down the middle, Clinton wins

in both elections. I think that most people get that (except the freeper types that you mention).

Is it interesting that Perot chose only those two elections to run in. A more detailed analysis of how those who voted for him identify themselves politically would be interesting.

on edit - (except the freeper types that you mention)

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

5. If Bush won Perot voters by 60+% Clinton would have still won

If someone want to argue that Bush would have won Perot voters 55%-45% (a decent margin) it still doesn't support the theory.

This theory exists only so the Republicans can argue they never lost a "fair" election.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. Yes-There Are Democrats Who Want To Deprive Bill Clinton Of His Much Deserved Victories

~

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

9. And, unfortunately, doing so puts all Dems in a bad light.

It is part of the larger "No Democrat has won 51% of the vote since 1964" argument.

(Carter won 50.1% of the vote)

[mtnsnake]

6. Yup

K&R

[Zynx]

7. Thank you very mcuh!

I hate that this little bastard of a lie makes its way onto our board with such frequency. It is total crap and is not even close to being true.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

10. It's always alarming to see history re-written within one's own memory.

The consensus in December 1992 was that Perot had no effect on the ultimate winner.

Only years later did people start believing the RW version of history, despite the fact that the numbers are easy to look up, and render the claim silly.

[xchrom]

8. recommend

[blm]

11. Perot never had any effect on that race. It was GHWBush expecting impeachment after

the release of the Dec 1992 BCCI report that caused him to run the worst campaign in history. Jackson Stephens made sure that a Bush-friendly Dem he groomed in Arkansas would take office to protect them both throughout the 90s, so the Bush brand name could strengthen and dominate into the next decade instead of being exposed and jailed.

Funny how some Dems prefer to ignore those actual circumstances in their fervor to believe Clinton was some sort of savior for the Dem party.

[Burma Jones]

12. It's just too damned bad that myth trumps fact every time

My votes for Democrats, and I always vote for Democrats, will be sound and sane and based on fact.....

Calling me a Freeper just keeps us weak. Congrats, you made a point, but reinforced the myth that we Democrats are full of hate and fury, even amongst ourselves.

But really, congrats, I have changed my opinion and will certainly not promulgate that myth. You won, you beat me, you belittled me, you take the cake. I am your Bitch.

But, of course, now I'm Freeper and maybe should vote accordingly......

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

14. I apologize sincerely for my very rude comment.

I just tried to delete it from the other thread, but it is past the editing period.

I was wrong to lash out at you like that. I was blaming you for an accumulation of previous comments of others.

Others have made that argument in ill will, but I should not have lumped you in and I had no reason to question your motives or call you names.

I was doing something I condemn in others, which is assigning motivations to other DUers based on honest disagreements.

(I think I was also being an avatar bigot... I have a bad habit of lumping together Grouchos, Hillaries, Coretta Scott Kings, etc. I kind of thought you were someone else. I imagine some other Elvis Costellos get blamed for some of my own controversial comments.)

[Burma Jones]

16. Accepted

I understand the frustration....

Thanks.

As an aside....I took my kids (9 and 7) to see Bob Dylan and Elvis Costello live last year. They loved Elvis and were confused by Dylan.....The 9 year old told me that Elvis Costello had a lot of energy and was "right about that stupid Bush" while Dylan was a "cross between a Hobo and an Angry Mouse"

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

18. Thanks. Dylan is, unfortunately, kind of hard to listen to these days.

[ContinentalOp]

23. "I imagine some other Elvis Costellos get blamed for some of my own controversial comments."

So you're actually the guy who called Ray Charles the N word! I knew Elvis was innocent! :P

[OnionPatch]

15. I knew liberals who voted for Perot.

Including my very liberal mother. They were concerned about NAFTA and that "great sucking sound of jobs going to Mexico" that Perot warned about. (And they were right.) These people would have voted for Clinton if Perot wasn't an option.

[elkston]

22. I voted for Perot in '92 (eom)

[TheFarseer]

17. I have crunched the numbers before

If I remember correctly, I assumed 50% going to Bush, 30% going to Clinton and 20% staying home. It was soemthing along thos elines though. A couple of states flipped to Bush but not enough to reverse the election certainly. Not enough to even make it look very close.

[dmr]

19. I've never seen that here, nor have I ever heard a Democrat say it

and it has never entered my mind. Never. I suspect troublemakers, or the very mis-informed.

One very good reason Poppy Bush lost was because he was out of touch, and what cinched it for a tremendous amount of people was his reaction, or should I say inaction after Hurricane Andrew. It proved very embarrassing to Bush when the Miami-Dade Emergency Director chastised the federal government in a news conference by literally pleading, "Where the hell's the calvary on this one!"

Bill Clinton won on his own merits.

[Zynx]

21. I've seen it literally dozens of times.

Believe me, it was pervasive during the primaries when people were discussing whether or not Hillary was electable.

[dmr]

24. Those are the kind of threads I ignore.

Shame people waste their time (and other's, too) on something that makes no sense. Why is it still being discussed? I still contend that those who spout information like this are either mis-informed or are suspect.

Because someone thinks Hillary is not electable should not negate that Bill won on his own merits. Personally, I don't think it's even fair to Bill to compare him to his wife. They are two unique individuals with different experiences and knowledge bases.

The Ralph Nader vote issue during Coup 2000 --- now that's a debate that has been beaten to death a zillion times over on DU. And am so happy those days are over. lol

I'm very happy we have Obama/Biden, and sickened by the idiots who are buying into the RNC bullshit myths of lyin' liars McCain/Palin.

:)

[Bad Thoughts]

20. I was a Perot voter -- twice

I stopped voting for the Reform Party in 2000. Indeed, in my adult life, I never voted for a Republican for president. And since 2000 I have voted straight democrat. Many of the things that attracted me to Perot were taken on by the Democrats in the 1990s, making the more conservative aspects unimportant.

{ETA} I think Perot had an appeal to some young people who were dissatisfied with politics in the 1980s and couldn't yet see the way forward.

[Drunken Irishman]

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

Bush cost Bush the election.

However, it still would've been an extremely tight popular vote win for Clinton. Which actually isn't surprising, since the popular vote is generally close in elections. I mean, even Clinton couldn't blow Bush out in the popular vote, so those who expect Obama to win by 10+ are denying history.

[DeepModem Mom]

27. K&R!