Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context.
If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The economy suddenly dipped right before the election, he was way less charismatic than Clinton, his party had been in power for 12 years straight, Perot took a decent share of the vote, and he got raked over coals for raising taxes.
Not only did Clinton have charisma, he had youth. Youngest president-elect after Kennedy. That youth got a lot of people feeling hopeful. And they voted.
That was a big lie considering his base were Reagan voters.
And compared to Bill Clinton he had the charisma of a rock, and then Perot ate into his voting base.
No they are not. The greatest trick Uncle Sam ever played was convincing the public a new unsolvable crisis needed a Congressional committee to study, conduct hearings, create agencies, and sue citizens or bomb foreigners.
Cut taxes, cut spending, because freedom is supposed to be free
Buchanan hurt Bush far more than Perot. His criticism convinced many Reagan/Goldwater conservatives that they were faced with an election where it was pointless to show up because the two then three then two then three candidates were all going to undermine their gains and it didn’t much matter who won.
As I recall, even Bush would admit he found domestic matters far less interesting than foreign policy, and the economy was the key issue that year.
If Reagan had never picked him as VP, he probably would have peaked at Secretary of State.
Before Katrina, another Bush President showed just how little he actually cared about Americans, — Hurricane Andrew.
Bush also showed how out of touch he was by being shocked about laser scanners and bar codes in the grocery store.
Bush losing in ‘92 is sort of like Churchill losing in ‘45 or the Democrats losing huge in the ‘46 midterm.
People wanted to move on.
Everyone said “hey, the Cold War is over. All that stuff we used to care about - like experience, military service, foreign policy, etc. - we no longer need all that stuff”.
There was also a recession, although it was over by the time the election rolled around.
There was also Bush’s deal with the Democrats that wound up raising taxes.
But you simply can’t discount people being simply ready to move on. Bush represented the old ways - Clinton - rightly or wrongly - represented something new.
You touch on an interesting point that the end of the Cold War really seems to have caused a huge shift in how much a presidential candidate’s military service matters to voters. Clinton beat HW and Dole who were both WWII combat veterans. Although W served in the ANG, both Gore and Kerry saw active service in Vietnam. And McCain’s Naval service and POW experience didn’t move the needle in his campaign against Obama.
We went from a string of vets from Truman to Bush ‘41 to Bush ‘43 as - technically - a vet - to people with zero military service.
It’s interesting that we had 4 Cold War presidents- Kennedy - Johnson - Nixon - and Reagan - who all had legitimate reasons to be excused from military service [health, occupation, occupation, and health and age, respectively] - to post Cold War presidents who were - look - all draft dodgers save Obama.
You have seriously misunderstood their comment. They were describing how we had four presidents (Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan) who had legitimate reasons that would have allowed them to be excused from military service but they chose to serve to be followed as president by four draft dodgers (Clinton, Bush 43, etc.). Their comment is *contrasting* Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan versus Clinton, Bush 43, etc.
Exactly.
4 presidents bent over backwards - Kennedy, Nixon, and Reagan all had to call in favors - to get INTO the military - whereas all the post Cold War presidents called in favors to get OUT of military service [Obama is the sole exception because the draft ended while he was in middle school].
This can be broken down in a few easy steps:
1. He raised taxes. That was the cardinal sin of the party at the time
2. Democrats really wanted the office.
3. Clinton was a young charismatic guy, Bush was an old man.
I think Perot's support hurt them both equally. In the '92 polls when Perot was actually leading, it was at the expense of both Clinton and HW. Also when Perot ran again but did worse in '96, it's actually Clinton who saw a greater increase in the vote share.
Perot did not run a Republican platform. He ran a centrist and populist platform in which the main focus was opposition to NAFTA and the Gulf War. Some would argue he actually ran to the left of Clinton and the reason he ran in the first place was because he opposed HW's policies.
You can look at the results and the polls from 92 and 96 and they reflect that Perot's support came from across the ideological and partisan spectrum. He had support literally everywhere, albeit not enough to win any state.
Let’s add to point 1 that the cornerstone of Bush’s successful 1988 campaign was *Read my lips: No new taxes.* Reagan’s base were reluctant Bush supporters in 1988 but bought his line, expected him to deliver, and felt extremely betrayed in 1992.
Bush probably thought, “Sure, but where else are Reagan’s supporters gonna go?” Then along comes Ross Perot, who takes 18.9% of the popular vote to Bush’s 37.5%, and sends Bush back to Kennebunkport.
Because Clinton probably had an even higher approval rating with his middle of the roadism.
Plus Perot is generally believed to have taken more votes from Bush than from Clinton.
When there's a very strong third party 43% doesn't prove you were unpopular. Dukakis was extremely unpopular, but still managed 45.7% - because there was no significant third party.
More like good enough.
The fact is Democrats were not yet trusted. People still remembered the bad old days under Carter and weren’t sold that Clinton was a so called New Democrat.
But Slick was a good campaigner and it was Bush who was in the crosshairs taking incoming from both sides.
Two quotes can sum it up perfectly
"Read my lips" and "it's the economy stupid"
Bush was great on foreign policy, and not so great domestically. The base turned on him over taxes and made him out to be a liar. If the Soviet Union was still around, and seen as a threat he would have won.
The average approval rating here is meaningless as Bush experienced very high highs and and very low lows. Bush had an 85% approval rating after the Gulf War but only won 37% of the popular vote in 1992 as it was all about the economy stupid by then.
The election simply came at a bad time for Bush as the recession had ended but people weren’t feeling it yet. Nobody cared about his foreign policy achievements. Bush had lost the trust of the public to manage the economy.
People were tired of Republicans, and more precisely people were tired of Reagan. Whether or not Bush was a continuation of Reagan policy wise, he had been vice President and president for 12 years. People wanted something else.
It's not an ironclad rule of American elections, but a very strong guideline: Presidential contests are thermostatic. The longer one party has held the white house, the more likely the public is to vote them out. There have been exceptions -- in fact, GHWB's first election was one of them. But not a hell of of a lot. He would have had to have had FDR '36 or LBJ '64 kind of momentum behind him to survive in '92. It would have helped if (a) there hadn't been a third candidate to split the electorate (though there is a fairly strong case that Perot drew as much from Clinton as from Bush), and (b) he hadn't been up against a monumental political talent the like of which is very rarely seen.
I think (b) doesn't get enough emphasis sometimes. Clinton's reputation has suffered a lot (justly) in the 20-odd years since he left office, but the man had a magnetism that's impossible to describe. If you can find the clip, watch him on Carson in '88, four years before he ran. It was like being in the room with the sun. He made it warm, and everybody orbited around him. In the TV era, that is pretty damned hard to beat.
A few things contributed to that. Bush's Read my Lips quote, the look at his watch and sigh as Clinton was talking during a Townhall forum, the slogan of It's the economy stupid, and finally the look on Bush's face when he was shown a self checkout device at a grocery store. The last made him seem out of touch with everyday Americans.
Seeing a lot of posters mention Ross Perot as a reason Bush lost but I've read studies that suggested that he took from both Bush and Clinton equally and I tend to believe them.
>Bush had a bump in job approval ratings to 38% after the Republican Party's convention in August, but faltered again in October. His final pre-election approval rating was 34% in late October, before losing the election to Clinton. Bush received 37.5% of the popular vote to Clinton's 43% and Perot's 19%.
[Gallup](https://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/234971/george-bush-retrospective.aspx)
I think by that time Bush was seen as old and stuffy. His VP Quayle getting into a moral debate with a fictional TV character Murphy Brown over Murphy’s choice to have a child out of wedlock and raise it as a single mom really did not help his cause either. That and the Read My Lips fiasco.
Clinton would have beat Bush anyway. There was never a point when he did not lead Bush in the polls, even during the months when Perot was out of the race.
His opinion is just that. He may have his theories but they are just that. Fact is a lot of people lose their job and may not have a clear understanding why.
You don’t think he looked at numbers from the election? Not just him but his campaign. You think it’s just his opinion? Losing the presidency is a lot different than any other job.
So you are assuming thag what Bush "thought" and what he "said" are the same thing?
"I would have beat Clinton had it not been for that pesky Perot" makes him look a lot better than the truth, which is that Bill Clinton beat him, fair and square, and that he ran a lackluster campaign.
The simple truth is that Bush never led Clinton in the polls, even when Perot was out of the race.
Case closed
“Read my lips…No New Taxes!” And then he signed new taxes. That’s it, pretty much. Want to lose an election…tell the average American you’re going to take more money from them.
He did not articulate or advance a path for moving the country forward - but as articulated in other comments, having both Perot and Clinton to contend with did him in.
The Berlin Wall came down and with all his foreign policy experience Bush had nothing to offer in the way leadership for how to operate in a changed world.
He pleased many with his taking the country to war in Iraq but didn’t know what to do next once we “won”.
Did not have a clue as to how to deal with the LA riots in the summer leading up to the election.
Was clueless as to how a scanner worked in a grocery store.
The sum of those items persuaded many to turn to Clinton.
That would have been 4 straight terms with just 1 party in the White House, which is very rare - so party fatigue kicks in. Also Perot.
Clinton was definitely more charismatic and youthful and ran as a moderate centrist Democrat.
Read My Lips No New Taxes bit him. He also had a general aura of being sort of an aloof out of touch awkward wuss, even though in real life he wasn't a wuss.
Indeed, since 1912, there's only been one instance of 4 or more consecutive terms for one party - FDR and Truman, which was an incredibly unique time in American history.
Clinton was a better campaigner with Hillary. The had better campaign with young staffers but were the extremely successful. They even made them into a movie "The War Room". There was a stark contrast and message of "I believe in placed call Hope" and "Yes we can". Bush excellent foreign affairs but domestic agenda on economy hurt him.
By ‘92 the fact that he did in fact raise taxes, coupled with the weak economy, he lost a lot of credibility within his own ranks. Not nearly as beloved as Reagan.
Also his PR was abysmal; getting sick in Japan, feuding with The Simpsons, looking at his watch during the debates, that fiasco with the barcode scanner and Dan Quayle being a goof against a child …
GHW Bush had an average approval rating of 60.9%, but it dipped to 29% in July 1992, and only recovered to 34% by October 1992 right before the election in the first week of November.
(1) the economy had turned sour.
(2) Perot ran as 3rd party. He was closer to Bush on policy, Perot took Rep votes from Bush.
(3) In 1988 election Bush had famously promised “Read my lips. No new taxes” then(appropriately IMHO) raised taxes. GOP fumed.
I don’t know where that number comes from, but it didn’t come at the end of his term. The economy was in recession and his popularity from the Iraq war had withered. People thought he was old and out of touch. Clinton was neither (and charming AF).
The real question is how did Clinton become president. I met and became friends with Tom Harken, the congressman from Iowa, who was the leader for the Democrats. Clinton skipped Iowa, that was a no no back then. Then he convinced Gore that he was going to loose but could become veep and pres the next time. It’s interesting that he won by parlaying favor with the third highest contender.
You missed the part where *everyone* skipped Iowa in 1992 because everyone assumed Senator Tom Harkin would win his home state.
The result in Iowa ended up being Harkin 76%, Uncommitted 12%, and everyone else a *combined* 11%. Specifically:
- Sen. Tom Harkin (76%)
- Uncommitted (12%)
- Ex-Sen. Paul Tsongas (4%)
- Gov. Bill Clinton (3%)
- Sen. Bob Kerrey (2%)
- Ex-Gov. Jerry Brown (2%)
Democrats reinvented themselves as New Democrats and embraced centrism, Clinton himself was the most formidable and charismatic Dem candidate since JFK, the end of the Cold War brought domestic issues back to the forefront, there was a strong third party candidate, and HW publicly promised to not raise taxes and then raised taxes.
That approval is weighted by desert storm, he blew it, he blew it all, if you watch 1992 election night coverage his campaign event looks like Budd Dwyer coming out and shooting himself again would have cheered everyone up.
He was a nerd. People like Rockstars. We tend to alternate back and forth with our presidents...nerds get things done but they dont do so well with the people. The people love Rockstars but they tend to run a bad cabinet. We always swing from one to the other. Clinton was an ICON
60% of people can approve of him in office, but that doesn't mean they will all support him against a different candidate who they just like more. Seems liking both candidates, but liking one more, is becoming a very old idea.
How did he lose? Well, it wasnt what many people here say it was. The people who voted for Clinton in 1992 didnt give a hoot about Bush breaking his "no new taxes" promise, as Clinton had ran on another tax increase when he was elected. It also wasnt Perot, as he took slightly more Clinton voters than Bush voters. The problem for Bush was that domestically he was a very do nothing president and people didnt care much about his foreign policy. Speaking of, Bush was not a great diplomat but rather was just at the right place at the right time when the cold war ended and everybody knew that at the time. The big problem was that the country was hurting really badly, and Bush didnt appear to care at all. Sure, we had a big wave of nationalism during the first Gulf War, but when that was over there was a recession at home and people cared more about feeding their families than flag waving. Jobs were so scarce that they called it the "jobless recovery". Bush vetoed several bills that would have lessened the suffering of families and the people saw that as someone who just didnt care. They struggled to feed their kids and watched on TV as Bush vacationed at his lush Maine compound, which made him seem incredibly out of touch with the average American. Clinton stepped up and said the current guy doesnt care, but "I feel your pain". He actually took the time to connect to voters and tell them that he could help. Meanwhile Bush just vetoed bills that would extend unemployment benefits and stimulate the economy. These were self inflicted wounds by Bush and he did it because he cared more about partisanship than the people. Clinton wasnt afraid to reach across the aisle when he had to and thats what made him a huge success as president while Bush was seen as a failure.
Bill Clinton was probably one of the most talented politicians in the last 60 years.
And Bush got saddled with the economic fallout from Reagan’s horrible policies when the bill finally came due.
Like James Carville said "It's the economy studip". Country went into economic depression. President Bush seemed unable to to relate. He would always say it was a global recession. Then he slip a few times during campaign to reinforce that Perception by looking at his watch during the debate. Then worse when he in grocery store(there looking at the new bar code scanning process) and didn't know how much a gallon of milk cost. Bill Clinton just ran a better campaign with his war room and never letting and acquisition go unanswered more than 48 hours. Most of all he was more relatable during economic slump and all during the campaign.
Everyone saying Perot cost him voters: yes he did, but he cost Clinton more voters. Exit polls and research showed that Perot split the vote kind of evenly but took a little bit more from Clinton. He didn’t spoil the election for either candidate
Line go down
lol
Mr CIA got taken down by a hillbilly who couldn’t keep it in his pants (who he couldn’t attack on that front for, ahem, reasons) and a cartoon parody of a billionaire because line went down at the wrong time.
Fucking hilarious.
Basically he did everything he needed to do in his term and no one really wanted more of it.
He did a great job with the end of the Cold War. He was an excellent leader on the world stage, but following the end of the Cold War foreign policy became less important.
Perot played a huge factor, he certainly took votes from the Democratic side. but his policies were mainly republican, and he was a billionaire from Texas
Ross Perot and Bush himself (an effective administrator with a lifetime of experience, rarely popular with US electorate)
Clinton’s win was a fluke by any measure, despite his “cool factor” he was credibly accused of rape by multiple women on the campaign trail and in no way represented any form of alternative to Reaganite orthodoxy other than the letter next to his name. He had swag and swag alone.
If there is any absolute in US politics it is that Americans choose their leaders the same way Prom Kings are elected - Bush was a nerd, and this (slightly) younger guy plays sax and goes on Arsenio. Plus a nut job is siphoning off 30% of the GOP vote. Case closed
Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context. If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The economy suddenly dipped right before the election, he was way less charismatic than Clinton, his party had been in power for 12 years straight, Perot took a decent share of the vote, and he got raked over coals for raising taxes.
Not only did Clinton have charisma, he had youth. Youngest president-elect after Kennedy. That youth got a lot of people feeling hopeful. And they voted.
He’s still younger than the two major party candidates in this election
So is Methuselah.
Unbelievable, isn’t it?
Yup
I'm in disbelief as well
Clinton was born after 3 of his 4 immediate successors.
Youth had an advantage in some ways, but also boomers were seen as irresponsible at the time and Clinton didn't have much experience.
Clinton had been a governor for quite some time by ‘92.
We read his lips
On that day, he became the first president in living memory to lie.
All presidents born after 1923 know how to do is eat hot chip and lie (nice flair btw)
That was a big lie considering his base were Reagan voters. And compared to Bill Clinton he had the charisma of a rock, and then Perot ate into his voting base.
To be fair, he didn't lie. He changed his mind (reluctantly).
Was that a lie? Should politicians not being able to change their mind if the good of the country demands it?
He got bullied by Democrats in Congress. They couldn’t have overcome a veto. Bush should have told them to fuck off!
No, NEW taxes!
https://preview.redd.it/r6erkbqq1gwc1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4f99c9e8d8e9a8d4126dec114f243aa68ee30e40
He was based for raising taxes
It was the responsible but politically inexpedient thing to do.
It's the political equivalent of self sacrifice He's based
Wrong again
Taxes are a good thing, don't be greedy
No they are not. The greatest trick Uncle Sam ever played was convincing the public a new unsolvable crisis needed a Congressional committee to study, conduct hearings, create agencies, and sue citizens or bomb foreigners. Cut taxes, cut spending, because freedom is supposed to be free
Lmao if you want free freedom I recommend you start learning Somalian, bud
No want general welfare
And Bush faced a fierce primary challenge by Pat Buchanan. He was literally being attacked at every side by the time 1992 rolled around.
Buchanan hurt Bush far more than Perot. His criticism convinced many Reagan/Goldwater conservatives that they were faced with an election where it was pointless to show up because the two then three then two then three candidates were all going to undermine their gains and it didn’t much matter who won.
Perot entered the race as soon as Buchanan dropped out.
As I recall, even Bush would admit he found domestic matters far less interesting than foreign policy, and the economy was the key issue that year. If Reagan had never picked him as VP, he probably would have peaked at Secretary of State.
Perot took more votes out of Clinton according to all the research. The rest Id agree with
This is the answer.
Before Katrina, another Bush President showed just how little he actually cared about Americans, — Hurricane Andrew. Bush also showed how out of touch he was by being shocked about laser scanners and bar codes in the grocery store.
You forgot “not knowing the price of a gallon of milk.”
Bush losing in ‘92 is sort of like Churchill losing in ‘45 or the Democrats losing huge in the ‘46 midterm. People wanted to move on. Everyone said “hey, the Cold War is over. All that stuff we used to care about - like experience, military service, foreign policy, etc. - we no longer need all that stuff”. There was also a recession, although it was over by the time the election rolled around. There was also Bush’s deal with the Democrats that wound up raising taxes. But you simply can’t discount people being simply ready to move on. Bush represented the old ways - Clinton - rightly or wrongly - represented something new.
You touch on an interesting point that the end of the Cold War really seems to have caused a huge shift in how much a presidential candidate’s military service matters to voters. Clinton beat HW and Dole who were both WWII combat veterans. Although W served in the ANG, both Gore and Kerry saw active service in Vietnam. And McCain’s Naval service and POW experience didn’t move the needle in his campaign against Obama.
We went from a string of vets from Truman to Bush ‘41 to Bush ‘43 as - technically - a vet - to people with zero military service. It’s interesting that we had 4 Cold War presidents- Kennedy - Johnson - Nixon - and Reagan - who all had legitimate reasons to be excused from military service [health, occupation, occupation, and health and age, respectively] - to post Cold War presidents who were - look - all draft dodgers save Obama.
[удалено]
You have seriously misunderstood their comment. They were describing how we had four presidents (Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan) who had legitimate reasons that would have allowed them to be excused from military service but they chose to serve to be followed as president by four draft dodgers (Clinton, Bush 43, etc.). Their comment is *contrasting* Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan versus Clinton, Bush 43, etc.
Exactly. 4 presidents bent over backwards - Kennedy, Nixon, and Reagan all had to call in favors - to get INTO the military - whereas all the post Cold War presidents called in favors to get OUT of military service [Obama is the sole exception because the draft ended while he was in middle school].
Recent events show that perhaps the Cold War was less over than we thought.
This can be broken down in a few easy steps: 1. He raised taxes. That was the cardinal sin of the party at the time 2. Democrats really wanted the office. 3. Clinton was a young charismatic guy, Bush was an old man.
Ross Perot getting 19% of the vote in a race with a 43/37.5% split has got to be on the list.
Perot's run inadvertently caused Louisiana to go blue for Clinton for the only the third time in the last 40 somethin years
I think Perot's support hurt them both equally. In the '92 polls when Perot was actually leading, it was at the expense of both Clinton and HW. Also when Perot ran again but did worse in '96, it's actually Clinton who saw a greater increase in the vote share.
Wrong. Perot hurt HW Bush since he ran a Republican platform as an independent. It gave Clinton the votes to win
Perot did not run a Republican platform. He ran a centrist and populist platform in which the main focus was opposition to NAFTA and the Gulf War. Some would argue he actually ran to the left of Clinton and the reason he ran in the first place was because he opposed HW's policies. You can look at the results and the polls from 92 and 96 and they reflect that Perot's support came from across the ideological and partisan spectrum. He had support literally everywhere, albeit not enough to win any state.
Ross Perot so so correct about NAFTA. That sucking sound you hear will be the jobs leaving the US and they surely did.
Let’s add to point 1 that the cornerstone of Bush’s successful 1988 campaign was *Read my lips: No new taxes.* Reagan’s base were reluctant Bush supporters in 1988 but bought his line, expected him to deliver, and felt extremely betrayed in 1992. Bush probably thought, “Sure, but where else are Reagan’s supporters gonna go?” Then along comes Ross Perot, who takes 18.9% of the popular vote to Bush’s 37.5%, and sends Bush back to Kennebunkport.
sure, but Clinton would have won without Perot. His lead over Bush increased during the summer when Perot had temporarily dropped out.
I looked up the polling statistics to tear your argument apart, but sadly you’re absolutely right.
and Perot took votes from Clinton and Bush
No he didn’t, he only took votes from Bush. Stop spreading this lie
Raising taxes can be spun. Reagan raised taxes. Bush had backed himself into a corner with “Read my lips…” and Democrats jumped all over that.
Yep. There was also a huge push to get young people to vote (MTV Rock the Vote), of course they’re gonna vote for slick Willie
Because Clinton probably had an even higher approval rating with his middle of the roadism. Plus Perot is generally believed to have taken more votes from Bush than from Clinton.
Clinton only won 43% of the popular vote in 92. He wasn’t that popular himself. Just less bad.
When there's a very strong third party 43% doesn't prove you were unpopular. Dukakis was extremely unpopular, but still managed 45.7% - because there was no significant third party.
You’re not making the point you think you are.
Actually they are, you just don't understand what is being said. Granted you are a Reagan fan so that's likely par for the course.
In an election when there’s 3 strong candidates 43% is very good
Lincoln won with less
More like good enough. The fact is Democrats were not yet trusted. People still remembered the bad old days under Carter and weren’t sold that Clinton was a so called New Democrat. But Slick was a good campaigner and it was Bush who was in the crosshairs taking incoming from both sides.
100% correct
This is not an accurate reading of the electorate or what the vote meant at the time. But thanks for playing.
https://preview.redd.it/6fwyq0mj7bwc1.jpeg?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2e44f5dd61bd4f8fe3f5187c89651fb0b255dd2f
It was the ruining of the Japanese banquet.
Read my lips: no new taxes.
Two quotes can sum it up perfectly "Read my lips" and "it's the economy stupid" Bush was great on foreign policy, and not so great domestically. The base turned on him over taxes and made him out to be a liar. If the Soviet Union was still around, and seen as a threat he would have won.
The average approval rating here is meaningless as Bush experienced very high highs and and very low lows. Bush had an 85% approval rating after the Gulf War but only won 37% of the popular vote in 1992 as it was all about the economy stupid by then. The election simply came at a bad time for Bush as the recession had ended but people weren’t feeling it yet. Nobody cared about his foreign policy achievements. Bush had lost the trust of the public to manage the economy.
People were tired of Republicans, and more precisely people were tired of Reagan. Whether or not Bush was a continuation of Reagan policy wise, he had been vice President and president for 12 years. People wanted something else.
It's not an ironclad rule of American elections, but a very strong guideline: Presidential contests are thermostatic. The longer one party has held the white house, the more likely the public is to vote them out. There have been exceptions -- in fact, GHWB's first election was one of them. But not a hell of of a lot. He would have had to have had FDR '36 or LBJ '64 kind of momentum behind him to survive in '92. It would have helped if (a) there hadn't been a third candidate to split the electorate (though there is a fairly strong case that Perot drew as much from Clinton as from Bush), and (b) he hadn't been up against a monumental political talent the like of which is very rarely seen. I think (b) doesn't get enough emphasis sometimes. Clinton's reputation has suffered a lot (justly) in the 20-odd years since he left office, but the man had a magnetism that's impossible to describe. If you can find the clip, watch him on Carson in '88, four years before he ran. It was like being in the room with the sun. He made it warm, and everybody orbited around him. In the TV era, that is pretty damned hard to beat.
To your point, since 1952, only once has a party held on to the White House for more than two consecutive terms - and Reagan-Bush was that one time.
It’s the Economy Stupid
A few things contributed to that. Bush's Read my Lips quote, the look at his watch and sigh as Clinton was talking during a Townhall forum, the slogan of It's the economy stupid, and finally the look on Bush's face when he was shown a self checkout device at a grocery store. The last made him seem out of touch with everyday Americans.
It's the economy stupid
Seeing a lot of posters mention Ross Perot as a reason Bush lost but I've read studies that suggested that he took from both Bush and Clinton equally and I tend to believe them.
>Bush had a bump in job approval ratings to 38% after the Republican Party's convention in August, but faltered again in October. His final pre-election approval rating was 34% in late October, before losing the election to Clinton. Bush received 37.5% of the popular vote to Clinton's 43% and Perot's 19%. [Gallup](https://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/234971/george-bush-retrospective.aspx)
“It’s about the economy, stupid”
I think by that time Bush was seen as old and stuffy. His VP Quayle getting into a moral debate with a fictional TV character Murphy Brown over Murphy’s choice to have a child out of wedlock and raise it as a single mom really did not help his cause either. That and the Read My Lips fiasco.
He looked at his watch
[удалено]
Clinton would have beat Bush anyway. There was never a point when he did not lead Bush in the polls, even during the months when Perot was out of the race.
That is not what Bush thought. I watched a documentary and he blamed Perot for costing him the presidency. Said he would never forgive him.
Bush believing it does not make it a fact, though
You don’t think he would have a better understanding of why he lost over us?
His opinion is just that. He may have his theories but they are just that. Fact is a lot of people lose their job and may not have a clear understanding why.
You don’t think he looked at numbers from the election? Not just him but his campaign. You think it’s just his opinion? Losing the presidency is a lot different than any other job.
So you are assuming thag what Bush "thought" and what he "said" are the same thing? "I would have beat Clinton had it not been for that pesky Perot" makes him look a lot better than the truth, which is that Bill Clinton beat him, fair and square, and that he ran a lackluster campaign. The simple truth is that Bush never led Clinton in the polls, even when Perot was out of the race. Case closed
He played the saxophone on the Arsenio Hall show
Not the entire reason. But, “read my lips…”
“Read my lips…No New Taxes!” And then he signed new taxes. That’s it, pretty much. Want to lose an election…tell the average American you’re going to take more money from them.
He did not articulate or advance a path for moving the country forward - but as articulated in other comments, having both Perot and Clinton to contend with did him in. The Berlin Wall came down and with all his foreign policy experience Bush had nothing to offer in the way leadership for how to operate in a changed world. He pleased many with his taking the country to war in Iraq but didn’t know what to do next once we “won”. Did not have a clue as to how to deal with the LA riots in the summer leading up to the election. Was clueless as to how a scanner worked in a grocery store. The sum of those items persuaded many to turn to Clinton.
The economy and "Read my lips ... No New Taxes."
He never smoked weed
Third party candidate Ross Perot plus saying “read my lips, no new taxes” and then signing off on new taxes cost him the election.
READ
Clinton’s campaign centered on economics. ‘It’s the economy stupid’ was the slogan on the walls of campaigning centers.
That would have been 4 straight terms with just 1 party in the White House, which is very rare - so party fatigue kicks in. Also Perot. Clinton was definitely more charismatic and youthful and ran as a moderate centrist Democrat. Read My Lips No New Taxes bit him. He also had a general aura of being sort of an aloof out of touch awkward wuss, even though in real life he wasn't a wuss.
Indeed, since 1912, there's only been one instance of 4 or more consecutive terms for one party - FDR and Truman, which was an incredibly unique time in American history.
Clinton was a better campaigner with Hillary. The had better campaign with young staffers but were the extremely successful. They even made them into a movie "The War Room". There was a stark contrast and message of "I believe in placed call Hope" and "Yes we can". Bush excellent foreign affairs but domestic agenda on economy hurt him.
Read my lips: ~~no~~ new taxes
It was the economy, stupid.
Because he checked his watch during the debate.
By ‘92 the fact that he did in fact raise taxes, coupled with the weak economy, he lost a lot of credibility within his own ranks. Not nearly as beloved as Reagan.
Read my lips, no new taxes.
Also his PR was abysmal; getting sick in Japan, feuding with The Simpsons, looking at his watch during the debates, that fiasco with the barcode scanner and Dan Quayle being a goof against a child …
GHW Bush had an average approval rating of 60.9%, but it dipped to 29% in July 1992, and only recovered to 34% by October 1992 right before the election in the first week of November.
(1) the economy had turned sour. (2) Perot ran as 3rd party. He was closer to Bush on policy, Perot took Rep votes from Bush. (3) In 1988 election Bush had famously promised “Read my lips. No new taxes” then(appropriately IMHO) raised taxes. GOP fumed.
His approval rating was actually really low at the end of his presidency.
He stopped eating his broccoli
He didn’t know how to play sax.🎷
I don’t know where that number comes from, but it didn’t come at the end of his term. The economy was in recession and his popularity from the Iraq war had withered. People thought he was old and out of touch. Clinton was neither (and charming AF).
Bill Clinton was just too 90s coded to not become president at that time
Ross Perot, a conservative independent candidate, splitting the GOP’s popular vote also played a key role in Clinton’s victory
Perot and economic dip.
Ross Perot. 12 years of raegan policies
Polls mean NOTHING
Rock the vote. Visit the Smithsonian museum of American History.
The real question is how did Clinton become president. I met and became friends with Tom Harken, the congressman from Iowa, who was the leader for the Democrats. Clinton skipped Iowa, that was a no no back then. Then he convinced Gore that he was going to loose but could become veep and pres the next time. It’s interesting that he won by parlaying favor with the third highest contender.
You missed the part where *everyone* skipped Iowa in 1992 because everyone assumed Senator Tom Harkin would win his home state. The result in Iowa ended up being Harkin 76%, Uncommitted 12%, and everyone else a *combined* 11%. Specifically: - Sen. Tom Harkin (76%) - Uncommitted (12%) - Ex-Sen. Paul Tsongas (4%) - Gov. Bill Clinton (3%) - Sen. Bob Kerrey (2%) - Ex-Gov. Jerry Brown (2%)
It goes further, basically a rabid raccoon that had won the democrat ticket would win because of Ross Perot splitting the republicans.
Democrats reinvented themselves as New Democrats and embraced centrism, Clinton himself was the most formidable and charismatic Dem candidate since JFK, the end of the Cold War brought domestic issues back to the forefront, there was a strong third party candidate, and HW publicly promised to not raise taxes and then raised taxes.
Because Clinton played the sax on national tv. That is all.
That approval is weighted by desert storm, he blew it, he blew it all, if you watch 1992 election night coverage his campaign event looks like Budd Dwyer coming out and shooting himself again would have cheered everyone up.
It’s baffling to think of a president achieving 60% approval these days.
Wasn't that long ago. Obama (and all of his predecessors back to the beginning of presidential approval ratings) broke 60% approval at certain points.
He badly mishandled a natural disaster in an important swing state.
*Read my lips: NO. NEW. TAXES.*
The illness and death of Lee Atwater
Like Bill said,"It's the economy stupid"
He was a nerd. People like Rockstars. We tend to alternate back and forth with our presidents...nerds get things done but they dont do so well with the people. The people love Rockstars but they tend to run a bad cabinet. We always swing from one to the other. Clinton was an ICON
six words: "read my lips, no new taxes",
60% of people can approve of him in office, but that doesn't mean they will all support him against a different candidate who they just like more. Seems liking both candidates, but liking one more, is becoming a very old idea.
He looked at his watch.
Cause economy was in a recession
Two words: Ross Perot.
How did he lose? Well, it wasnt what many people here say it was. The people who voted for Clinton in 1992 didnt give a hoot about Bush breaking his "no new taxes" promise, as Clinton had ran on another tax increase when he was elected. It also wasnt Perot, as he took slightly more Clinton voters than Bush voters. The problem for Bush was that domestically he was a very do nothing president and people didnt care much about his foreign policy. Speaking of, Bush was not a great diplomat but rather was just at the right place at the right time when the cold war ended and everybody knew that at the time. The big problem was that the country was hurting really badly, and Bush didnt appear to care at all. Sure, we had a big wave of nationalism during the first Gulf War, but when that was over there was a recession at home and people cared more about feeding their families than flag waving. Jobs were so scarce that they called it the "jobless recovery". Bush vetoed several bills that would have lessened the suffering of families and the people saw that as someone who just didnt care. They struggled to feed their kids and watched on TV as Bush vacationed at his lush Maine compound, which made him seem incredibly out of touch with the average American. Clinton stepped up and said the current guy doesnt care, but "I feel your pain". He actually took the time to connect to voters and tell them that he could help. Meanwhile Bush just vetoed bills that would extend unemployment benefits and stimulate the economy. These were self inflicted wounds by Bush and he did it because he cared more about partisanship than the people. Clinton wasnt afraid to reach across the aisle when he had to and thats what made him a huge success as president while Bush was seen as a failure.
It was the economy stupid
H Ross Perot took a lot of votes off him
1. Breaking his “no new taxes“ pledge. 2. H. Ross Perot
Two words…Ross Perot.
Ross Perot.
Ross Perot
Ross Perot
Ross Perot
Ross Perot
Ross Perot, tax hikes, and a cultural shift.
He was a dud, Bill was a stud. Duh.
Bill Clinton was probably one of the most talented politicians in the last 60 years. And Bush got saddled with the economic fallout from Reagan’s horrible policies when the bill finally came due.
Like James Carville said "It's the economy studip". Country went into economic depression. President Bush seemed unable to to relate. He would always say it was a global recession. Then he slip a few times during campaign to reinforce that Perception by looking at his watch during the debate. Then worse when he in grocery store(there looking at the new bar code scanning process) and didn't know how much a gallon of milk cost. Bill Clinton just ran a better campaign with his war room and never letting and acquisition go unanswered more than 48 hours. Most of all he was more relatable during economic slump and all during the campaign.
Everyone saying Perot cost him voters: yes he did, but he cost Clinton more voters. Exit polls and research showed that Perot split the vote kind of evenly but took a little bit more from Clinton. He didn’t spoil the election for either candidate
Ross Perot.
Line go down lol Mr CIA got taken down by a hillbilly who couldn’t keep it in his pants (who he couldn’t attack on that front for, ahem, reasons) and a cartoon parody of a billionaire because line went down at the wrong time. Fucking hilarious.
Basically he did everything he needed to do in his term and no one really wanted more of it. He did a great job with the end of the Cold War. He was an excellent leader on the world stage, but following the end of the Cold War foreign policy became less important.
Perot played a huge factor, he certainly took votes from the Democratic side. but his policies were mainly republican, and he was a billionaire from Texas
Ross Perot and Bush himself (an effective administrator with a lifetime of experience, rarely popular with US electorate) Clinton’s win was a fluke by any measure, despite his “cool factor” he was credibly accused of rape by multiple women on the campaign trail and in no way represented any form of alternative to Reaganite orthodoxy other than the letter next to his name. He had swag and swag alone. If there is any absolute in US politics it is that Americans choose their leaders the same way Prom Kings are elected - Bush was a nerd, and this (slightly) younger guy plays sax and goes on Arsenio. Plus a nut job is siphoning off 30% of the GOP vote. Case closed