you can see that those dots in the orange circle, Clinton went down as Perot went up and Bush stayed flat. Clearly, you guys are trying hard to cling to your myth. Face it: Bush Sr. lost and had fundamentals that would have defeated whether a. Perot hadn’t re-entered or b. hadn’t run.
Oh, no question about that. It’s just that he’s finally drawing this distinction on, what, the third try?
The name for that is “moving the goalposts.”
just another point about this: as Nixon’s election in 1968 and political strategy saw the ultimate end of the Dixiecrat, 1992 saw the end of the Rockefeller Republicans. Another thing 1968, 1980, and 1992 all have in common: incumbent parties in the White House with approval ratings in a small band above and below 40%, and all had 3rd parties get significant showings. Some tried to call all of them spoilers, but in reality, Wallace, Anderson, and Perot’s views were opposite enough to the parties in power, hence in part how Nate Silver rejects the idea any of them changed the outcome of those elections.
Clearly you are hallucinatory.
Bush’s numbers in sequence: 44 41 35 35 31. Dropping 13 points in a pretty straight line once Perot entered you call staying flat?
Clinton’s numbers in sequence: 25 26 29 25. Staying flat within a 4 point range (typical MOE for these things) you call going down? You are really gong to hitch your argument to a microanalysis of the noise that is the 29 to 25 drop in a consistently overall flat trendline
Agreed Perot’s numbers in his first phase were a fairly steady increase, up 9 over that phase and going from a close third to the frontrunner: 24 25 29 35.
I have no skin in this game and no previous conception of spoiler to cling onto. No question that Perot’s re-entry and being on the ballot election day hurt Clinton much more than Bush. Indeed the idea that Perot being on the ballot election day was his being a spoiler for Bush is a myth. To go from that to saying that he had no major impact on the election is not however supported by the facts.
The circumstance when he entered was that few were happy with either major party choice. Under normal circumstances if that persisted they would have still voted for their usual partisan choice or just stayed home.
Perot’s entry gave people a “now for something completely different” option. Independents and leaners, both unhappy with the established choices on each side, began to say Perot. Republican leaners abandoned party affiliation and became active in that option more than Democratic ones. To be precise the national electorate included 14.4% Democratic leaners and 12.4% Republican ones while those who supported Perot enough to call the 800 phone bank were 15.8 D leaners and 18.8 GOP ones. Half of those Perot “potential volunteers” self-identified as Conservative.
He unmoored these leaners from voting along their past party affiliation lines.
The actual data supports best the story that Perot got leaners, especially GOP leaners, to break loose from their affiliation. He got the true swing voters to go off of a reluctant decision for Bush. And then he dropped them right at the moment that Clinton shined his brightest with a speech aimed specifically at them. Successfully aimed at them. They did not drift back to Bush whence they came. They mostly went over to and stayed with Clinton, mostly staying with him even after Perot returned.
Yes it is possible that Clinton would have won them with great speechifying anyway. And it is probable that he would have won anyway. But it is also possible not; it is possible that without Perot having loosened affiliations the GOP leaners (and maybe even true independents) would have decided to stick with the devil they knew.
breaking news: for probably the first time ever, and definitely since Trump came on the scene, a conservative publication, the American Spectator, has published a piece from a sane Republican admitting that Perot did not change the ultimate outcome of 1992.
I think if more people on the right or in the GOP see this, Jeb Bush’s presidential prospects will take a hit, as possibly “revelation” of sorts might be used by moderates like Christie. Even if it doesn’t affect this cycle, 2016, I think we might see Republicans come to grips with reality that they need to move left as Democrats of the 1980s moved right.