Perot victory in 1992

[Deleted]

Suppose Ross Perot didn’t drop out in July of ‘92 and didn’t fire his campaign manager.

Polls showed that 35% would’ve voted for Perot if they thought he could win.

Suppose he did poll 35%.

United States presidential election, 1992:

Perot: 36,554,493 (35.0%)
Clinton: 36,502,272 (34.95%)
Bush: 30,653,553 (29.35%)

This is based on Perot gaining 8.05% from Bush and Clinton

If this was the nationwide result the Electoral College would be:

Clinton 258
Perot 229
Bush 51

Now. I think if there were signs after the early poll closings Perot was in the lead it would motivate a bigger vote for Perot in Michigan and California. So I’d add those onto his total.

That would be enough for a Perot victory.

[pragmaticidealist]

Aug 20, 2018 18:01:40 GMT @conservativeestimate said:

Suppose Ross Perot didn’t drop out in July of ‘92 and didn’t fire his campaign manager.

Polls showed that 35% would’ve voted for Perot if they thought he could win.

He peaked at, IIRC, 38% (actual voting intention, not merely 'if he could win') just before dropping out. 

When he re-entered the race, he was at around 8%. His presence in the televised debates helped him to his eventual 19% share of the national popular vote. 

An issue is that his running mate, Admiral James Stockdale, clearly wasn't up to the job of being vice president and memorably gave a train wreck performance against Dan Quayle and Al Gore in the vice-presidential debate. Stockdale died of, I believe, Alzheimer's in around 2006, so perhaps he was displaying symptoms of it during that campaign. 

Perot is an interesting character and is a bit difficult to place politically. He had elements of populism, but also elements of middle-of-the-round 'common sense' type politics, hence he did well in places such as Maine. 

[Deleted]

In such a scenario Bush states would’ve been confined to the Deep South. Ironically North Carolina and Virginia (which voted Democrat in 2008) would’ve probably voted Republican if Perot got 35% nationally.

1996 and 2000 would’ve been very interesting, and of course all elections after.

How would the 1994 mid-terms play out?

[neilm]

Wrt Stockdale, the Stockdale Paradox is something you might come across if you're into management studies/business approaches (or psychobabble, depending on your point of view).

[greenhert]

I am surprised this thread has not come up earlier-this is one of the biggest "what ifs" in history and it was almost entirely Ross Perot's fault it did not happen.

The long-term consequences would have been much more widespread across the USA, as if Ross Perot had won the Reform Party would have been turned into a credible third force and make a lasting impact on the US political scene, even accounting for the fact that Ross Perot was as wealthy as any other credible presidential candidate had to be.

[No Offence Alan]

President North in 2000?

[tomc]

Has it ever come out why Perot withdrew?

[thirdchill]

The vote for Perot was so evenly spread that the leads required may have needed to be greater than suggested at the start of the thread.

Alaska and Maine would have been the the most likely states to go to Perot if he had won any. Usually republican (former) and democrat (latter) in presidential elections but with the highest % Perot votes and a tradition of voting for independents and third parties in local and statewide elections.

Not sure exactly when the tipping point would be, but to get the 270 Perot would have probably needed to win at least one of Texas and California and possibly both.

[Deleted]

He would’ve needed to win California and Texas, but even in our timeline got over 20% in both so it was entirely possible if he hadn’t dropped out and fired his campaign manager.

The Republicans got 51% of the vote in Cali in 1988 so winning over disenchanted Republicans was rewarding for Perot.

He would’ve had to sweep the west coast as well as New England to get over 270 but I think it was entirely doable.

[neilm]

So what happens after a Perot victory?

[catking]

My guess would be Perot wouldn't have governed differently from Clinton in any material way. He would likely have been re-elected in 1996. However, I doubt the Reform Party would have seen any signfiicant breakthrough in Congress. Most likely Perot wouldn't have been able to hand over the baton to another Reform candidate in 2000 but that candidate would have gotten enough GOP votes to put a Democrat into the White House in 2000. Hard to say who would have been the most likely candidate but I very much doubt it would have been Gore.

[Deleted]

No NAFTA, balanced budget?

[Deleted]

What difference would it have made if Perot had chosen Pat Buchanan as his running mate?

[Izzyeviel]

Would it be fair to say that Perot would be like Trump albeit without the stupidity and general vileness?

[Deleted]

Aug 24, 2018 6:53:35 GMT Izzyeviel said:

Would it be fair to say that Perot would be like Trump albeit without the stupidity and general vileness?

Far less polarising. Perot polled well in Florida, Texas, the Midwest, New England, all over really.

He attracted bipartisan support across the country which is why 35% of the popular vote could well have given him a majority of the Electoral College vote.

Just look at the range of states where he got his highest vote shares: Maine, Alaska, Kansas, Minnesota etc.

[pragmaticidealist]

An 'interesting electoral fact' about the election is that Iowa, as rounded up, exactly reflected the national popular vote - Clinton 43%, Bush 37% and Perot 19%. It was also the only state in which there was a 'swing' from Democratic to Republican compared to 1988; Dukakis had done well in the state due to local concerns about agriculture.

[Deleted]

Aug 24, 2018 10:13:44 GMT pragmaticidealist said:

An 'interesting electoral fact' about the election is that Iowa, as rounded up, exactly reflected the national popular vote - Clinton 43%, Bush 37% and Perot 19%. It was also the only state in which there was a 'swing' from Democratic to Republican compared to 1988; Dukakis had done well in the state due to local concerns about agriculture.

Is Iowa the only state that voted Republican in 2004 but not 1988?

[iain]

Aug 24, 2018 11:02:50 GMT @conservativeestimate said:

Aug 24, 2018 10:13:44 GMT pragmaticidealist said:

An 'interesting electoral fact' about the election is that Iowa, as rounded up, exactly reflected the national popular vote - Clinton 43%, Bush 37% and Perot 19%. It was also the only state in which there was a 'swing' from Democratic to Republican compared to 1988; Dukakis had done well in the state due to local concerns about agriculture.

Is Iowa the only state that voted Republican in 2004 but not 1988?

No

[Deleted]

Aug 24, 2018 11:05:07 GMT iain said:

Aug 24, 2018 11:02:50 GMT @conservativeestimate said:

Is Iowa the only state that voted Republican in 2004 but not 1988?

No

Oh of course, West Virginia

[greenchristian]

Aug 23, 2018 9:01:19 GMT catking said:

My guess would be Perot wouldn't have governed differently from Clinton in any material way. He would likely have been re-elected in 1996. However, I doubt the Reform Party would have seen any signfiicant breakthrough in Congress. Most likely Perot wouldn't have been able to hand over the baton to another Reform candidate in 2000 but that candidate would have gotten enough GOP votes to put a Democrat into the White House in 2000. Hard to say who would have been the most likely candidate but I very much doubt it would have been Gore.

Why the assumption that the replacement Reform candidate would have taken more votes from the GOP than from the Democrats? Perot took more-or-less equally from both sides.