- This topic has 7 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
Always found this interesting. Billy Graham and Nelson Mandela, I get. Pope JP II…seems like an elevated level of admiration for a pontiff, given that Catholics are only 23% of the American population.
Ronald Reagan, I understand, along with most of the other presidents. I even understand the votes for molester-in-chief Bill Clinton, who at least balanced the budget for one year and Richard Nixon for his foreign expertise.
But Jimmy Carter? Third most admired man? With the wreck he made of America?
-
It’s a bit of a pet peeve for me, but I can’t keep myself from correcting folks when they say, “when Clinton balanced the budget . . .”. Of course, he did no such thing. Until the mid-terms in 1994, he did everything he could to discredit the policies in the Contract With America. As distinct from Obama, Clinton had no separate agenda to pursue, so he just turned on his heel and led the parade. Like in all things, he was an immoral opportunist who had a gift for reading political tea leaves.
-
It’s longevity.
The one that sticks out to me is HW Bush. He led the CIA and had a relatively inauspicious presidency, followed by a quiet post presidency (meaning he didn’t launch the Bush global initiative and seek celebrity…just like his son). I wouldn’t have thought that would score most admired points (and yes, I admired him at times though have revised my view of neocon republicans in recent years.).
____________________________________________________________
Sic transit gloria mundi (so shut up and get back to work) -
-
-
It’s longevity. The one that sticks out to me is HW Bush. He led the CIA and had a relatively inauspicious presidency, followed by a quiet post presidency (meaning he didn’t launch the Bush global initiative and seek celebrity…just like his son). I wouldn’t have thought that would score most admired points (and yes, I admired him at times though have revised my view of neocon republicans in recent years.).
Do you think GHWB would have been re-elected if Perot had not run? Clinton got 43.0% of the popular vote, GHWB got 37.4% and Perot got 18.9%. My sense is that he largely drew from Bush, but what do you think?
-
-
[quote quote=9541]
It’s longevity. The one that sticks out to me is HW Bush. He led the CIA and had a relatively inauspicious presidency, followed by a quiet post presidency (meaning he didn’t launch the Bush global initiative and seek celebrity…just like his son). I wouldn’t have thought that would score most admired points (and yes, I admired him at times though have revised my view of neocon republicans in recent years.).
Do you think GHWB would have been re-elected if Perot had not run? Clinton got 43.0% of the popular vote, GHWB got 37.4% and Perot got 18.9%. My sense is that he largely drew from Bush, but what do you think?[/quote]
From RCP- “From all of this, you might see an argument forming that Perot did, in fact, cost Bush re-election. But the claim here is actually significantly weaker. Instead, the best we can say is that we don’t know, and cannot know. There is significant empirical evidence, briefly outlined above, that Perot did not cost Bush the election, but that evidence all comes from the universe where Perot actually ran. If Perot fundamentally reset the terms of the 1992 election, then this evidence cannot answer our actual question.”
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/07/10/we_dont_know_whether_perot_cost_bush_in_1992_140743.htmlWe can’t know how voters would have reacted to a traditional two party contest, but in my opinion Bush would have lost due to the 1990 recession. I don’t believe you can simply say Perot supporters came at Bush’s expense.
If Bush would have won all of Perot’s popular votes, he would have won several normally solid blue states and won by a landslide. My point is, Bush would not have won California, Washington, Oregon, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin even if Perot had not run.
Just for grins, here is an AI response to the question.
“The idea that Ross Perot cost George H.W. Bush the 1992 presidential election has been debated for decades. Here’s an overview of the arguments:
The Case For Perot Costing Bush the Election
- Split the Conservative Vote: Perot’s policies, particularly on fiscal conservatism, appealed to many voters who might otherwise have supported Bush. Some argue that this split the conservative vote, weakening Bush’s ability to counter Bill Clinton.
- Vote Distribution: Exit polls suggested that Perot drew more votes from Bush than from Clinton. Perot received nearly 19% of the popular vote—a significant share for a third-party candidate.
The Case Against Perot Costing Bush the Election
- Broad Appeal: Perot’s support was broad and came from both parties and independents. Analysis of exit polls showed that a substantial portion of Perot voters might not have voted at all if he hadn’t run.
- Clinton’s Strong Campaign: Clinton’s campaign capitalized on Bush’s perceived weaknesses, including the economy and his perceived broken “no new taxes” pledge. Many analysts believe Clinton would have won even without Perot in the race.
- Electoral Votes: Even if Bush had received all of Perot’s votes, Clinton’s electoral victory was decisive. Clinton won 370 electoral votes to Bush’s 168, a margin unlikely to have been overturned by Perot’s absence.
What the Data Suggests
- Studies and polls conducted after the election suggested Perot’s voters were fairly evenly split among those who would have otherwise voted for Bush, Clinton, or not voted at all.
- Perot’s presence likely changed the dynamics of the race, but his exact impact remains uncertain.
Conclusion
While Perot’s candidacy influenced the election, most political analysts agree that other factors, such as a weak economy and dissatisfaction with Bush, were more decisive in Clinton’s victory. Perot may have played a role, but he was likely not the sole reason for Bush’s loss.”
I still believe Clinton won because Perot entered the race and forced Bush to respond on two fronts, allowing Clinton to gain momentum.
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.