How did President George H.W. Bush lose his re-election bid to Governor Bill Clinton?
“Its the economy stupid.”James Carville was one of Bill Clinton’s chief political advisors and was focused like a laser on the bread and butter issues that motivate American middle and working class voters.Another thing is the mere longevity of Republican control of the White House. The 12 years of Reagan and Bush were an anomaly in American politics and the basic divide in politics works against too much of the same thing. It was the case for most of the Reagan administration that although personally popular his policies were less than popular. Bush had little of the personal charisma of his predecessor but all the policy baggage. He was also “out of touch” in much the same way as Hillary Clinton was in 2008 and 2016. He was too long in the establishment and DC and it was obvious when he was put up for comparison to his two rivals.Two rivals is important because the Ross Perot phenomena was a real drag against the Republican base that was soft on Bush because of his squishiness on taxes “read my lips” and culture war issues. Perot ran right at what we would call Tea Party and libertarian types today. Clinton ran a strong kitchen table campaign and was not yet a creature of Washington. He really connected in a way that Trump and Bernie were able to in the recent campaign. He was also not burdened by the overhang of responsibility for any Iran-Contra, recession, support for right wing death squads in Central and South America, or anything else that hung onto Bush.The Bush years saw the disintegration of the primary geopolitical threat to the US (USSR) and the victory in the Gulf was a short conflict that simply didn’t effect most people in the country. The recession that the US was experiencing was entirely out of Clinton’s hands and Bush had been a part of the administration that lead the country for more than a decade.Bush was in a bad spot. He could have won if Perot wasn’t in and the economy was a little better.
Why didn't George H.W. Bush get re-elected?
There are a number of factors that combined to make 1992 a loss for George H. W. Bush.United States presidential election, 1992While there are a lot of points of disagreement on the “what” and the “why”, the following outlines the highlights:1) The election was a transition point for American voter demographics. More voters were post-war baby-boomers (eligible voters born between 1945 and 1974) than Second World War era voters (born 1945 or before). A reflection of that, at least in part, thrust George H. W. Bush as the last World War II veteran to serve as president of the United States. Bill Clinton, his successor, represented the first of the baby-boomer generation to serve as America’s chief executive.2) American conservatives were angry with Bush and his reneging on a pledge (in their eyes) of not raising taxes (“Read my lips – ‘NO NEW TAXES’ “) and switched to one of the other candidates or simply stayed away from the polls on election day.3) Ross Perot mounted a semi-successful third party bid for president. (While this is still hotly debated to this day, I contend that it was the deciding factor since only 6 closely contested states – New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Tennessee -- who ended up being a win for Clinton but voted heavily for Perot, would have decided the election in Bush’s favor. Remember, majority vote is not as significant as Electoral College vote.) http://uselectionatlas.org/RESUL...4) Bill Clinton (the president who would sign mandatory sentencing and “three-strikes” legislation into law) ran a classic, and very effective, “law and order” platform to win-over white, southern voters: publically pro-death penalty, condemning rap music for endorsing and inciting violence with what’s known as the Sister Souljah Moment ( 20 Years Ago the Infamous Sister Souljah Moment Occured -We Look Back — “Clinton sent a strong message to his centrist voters that he was capable and more than willing to put Black folks in their place.”)5) Americans shifted from concerns regarding U. S. foreign policy and started to become more and more concerned with domestic issues. In the end, it was the economy that made for Bush’s demise and even thought the downturn had actually ended by the fourth quarter of 1992, by election day no one had yet seen or felt the positive effects.In times of peace, people vote with their wallets. As Bill Clinton famously said (and which still resonates with voters today) “It’s the economy, stupid!”
Did Ross Perot run in the 1992 election as a means to have Alliance Airport built, since George Bush had refused him earlier?
Ross Perot began making speeches about the loss of America’s manufacturing base before 1992. I think his entry into the presidential race was prompted by the same thing that motivated Herbert Hoover and Mitt Romney, i.e., their conviction that they could translate business success into governing success.My guess is that Perot saw no one else talking about his pet issue and decided that he had to run for president because otherwise it wasn’t going to be addressed.
Would Bill Clinton have won the 1992 Presidential election if Ross Perot had not been in the race as an independent alternative to Clinton and incumbent George HW Bush?
Yes, he would have. Exit polls showed that Perot drew voters equally from Clinton and Bush. If Perot had not been in the race some of his voters would have stayed home and more than two thirds of the rest would have had to vote for Bush for him to win. That was not in the cards.Republicans have blamed Bush’s loss on Perot, but there is nothing to back that up. People viewed Perot as a conservative but Perot’s biggest issue was NAFTA. He was against it while Clinton and Bush were for it. Democrats were particularly disappointed in this. In Congress Republicans voted for NAFTA in much greater numbers than Democrats did. Union members were especially alarmed by NAFTA, so they had good reason to vote for Perot instead of Clinton.THE 1992 ELECTIONS: DISAPPOINTMENT -- NEWS ANALYSIS An Eccentric but No Joke; Perot's Strong Showing Raises Questions On What Might Have Been, and Might Be
How pissed were 1992 Republicans when Ross Perot took the election from Bush senior?
I voted for a Bush, both in 1988 and 1992. I was not angry with Ross Perot because he did not cause Bush to lose his reelection.If you want to put forth a convincing case explaining why you think he did, please proceed and I’ll be happy to look it over. However, please consider the following:The best polling data indicate that had Perot not run, his voters would have otherwise gone for Bush and Clinton at about equal levels. The net impact, then, was minimal. Remember that Perot supporters were not simply anti-Bush.Clinton’s actual winning margin was broad and deep. Perot voters would have needed to break for Bush at a hefty fraction, more than 2:1. Let’s take a look. Without their man on the ballot those Perot voters could have voted for Bush, or they could have voted for Clinton, or they could have done something else like stay home or voted for a different candidate. If you assume that the groups split 60–30–10, that's a net gain for Bush of 30% of Perot’s votes. That’s enormously generous to Bush, and even so it would not have awarded him the election.Bush lost for other reasons. He had the disadvantage of running as an incumbent during an economic downturn. His party had been in the White House for three terms already, and voters tend to get tired of the ones in charge. He didn't run a good campaign while Clinton did. But if you want to fault any one person for Bush’s defeat, other than Bush himself, look at Pat Buchanan. He challenged Bush in the primaries and excited a rabid right wing of the Republican Party. More than anyone else, Buchanan wounded Bush and cost him the election.