I recently engaged in an exchange on a liberal blog about Ross Perot and the '92 election. It went the same way such exchanges always do:
Me: It was Ross Perot that put him in the White House.
Them: A lie. Perot drew votes about equally from Bush and Clinton. Certainly he was not the difference maker despite the Republicans' assertions otherwise.
Then, me again:
Actually, it's true. I did a lengthy analysis of the '92 election results and there is no way that Perot was not a spoiler for Bush senior. Now, in fairness, that was the landscape of that political year, and Bush could not keep Clinton and Perot at bay. But Perot acted as a spoiler, if by no other measure (such as the extra ad buys he made and press coverage he got where he spent 80% of the time attacking H.W. Bush) then electorally--while it may not be impossible, it is statistically highly improbable that Clinton would have won without Perot in the race. Even if you accept the notion that Perot drew evenly from both candidates, which you should not (were Blue Dog Democrats who had voted for Reagan and Bush really going to vote for Clinton, if Perot had not been in the mix? Probably not, but those folks are counted on the Democrat side of "drawing evenly between the two parties") . . . where was I? Oh, yeah, there were enough states with enough electoral votes where the smallest shift in Bush's favor would give Bush the election.
I calculated it as something around 35% of the Perot votes going to H.W. Bush gives him the election in 1992. I'd have to go back through the stats again, it's been a long time, but . . . am I really supposed to believe liberal Democrats were enamored with Perot? The Texas Billionaire who talked like a Kentucky Fried chicken? Yes, he had a populist streak, but still . . .
Okee-dokee.
Nader was a spoiler for Gore in 2000, with much less of the vote than Perot got. Whaddaya think about that bald assertion? Without Nader, Gore wins in 2000. No recounts. Done.
This originally came up on a mailing list I subscribed to in the days before blogging, debating the relative obsession the media had at the time with how bad it was Nader would be a spoiler in the 2000 election, when they had no problem with Perot being in it. Even though Perot was clearly a "spoiler", because he was not going to win the election and was clearly going to draw more votes from the Republicans than the Democrats. My argument at the time was that it was because Perot was going to hurt Bush's chance at winning a 2nd term that Perot never got the question: "Aren't you worried about throwing the election to Clinton?" Which was, of course, exactly the sort of question that Nader got about throwing the election to the junior Bush, since he would clearly take potential votes away from Gore.
So, there was a call, when Nader was running, that he drop out, so only the two parties who had a chance of winning would be running, and it would be more fair. Yet they didn't call for only two parties when Perot was running because the press, and partisan Democrats, knew
Perot was not a serious threat to the Democrats, but could easily spoil the election for Bush.
That Nader's candidacy, and potential as a spoiler, was this huge deal compared to Perot's candidacy, and potential as a spoiler, was just silly.
Perot got a larger percentage of the vote both times he ran than Nader did in 2000. And the difference almost certainly cost Bush, Sr. the election, even with some crossover. He was obviously going to get more of the vote. And he was a lunatic billionaire to boot. The difference is, he obviously was a big siphoner of Republican voters who respond well to the Perot-style Texas-fried southern populism. He certainly cost George, Sr. the '92 election as Nader cost Gore in 2000. And Nader got a much smaller number of votes, overall. And he never polled as high as Perot did, nowhere near it. But during the run up to 2000, there was all sorts of concern in the media about Nader. With Perot? They gave him a soapbox on Larry King. There were no concerned questions about his distorting the elections. Because Perot was most likely to hurt Bush, and they knew it.
The response from the left:
He's in the race. He's out of the race. He's back in the race. There was no
"Perot factor" in either of the elections he ran in. Bush and Dole didn't
lose to Clinton because Perot siphoned off votes; if 100 percent of the
Perot vote would have gone to the GOP, Clinton would have still won both
elections.
That was an actual, quoted response from a liberal on the issue, btw. They don't all make the empircally false claim that if 100% of the vote had gone to Bush, he still would have lost both elections (Republicans would have won 1992, and might have squeaked by electorally in 1996, in that case, actually). But it's not entirely atypical of the revisionist history they employ around this issue, either.
Simply put, the numbers show that Perot was a major factor in both elections. In 1992, Clinton got 44,908,233 votes. George H. W. Bush got 39,102,282 votes. H. Ross Perot got 19,741,048 votes. If you add Perot and Bush's votes together, the number you get is . . tada . . . 58,843,330 votes. That's a margin of victory of 24%. If Bush had gotten all of that, which he wouldn't have but Gore would not have gotten all of Ralph Nader's votes, either, as most of those people would have voted for the next socialist candidate on the ballot, or another greenish or liberal-communist party. But that's an election night landslide, put together, that would have nuked Clinton. Statistically, the electoral votes would have gone, in a clear and decisive victory, to George Herbert Walker Bush. In comparison, Nader was a gnat.
Ronald Reagan got 53,428,357 votes in 1984, to Walter Mondale's 36,930,923 votes. That was a victory margin for Reagan of 31%. A huge landslide in a presidential race. 24% is less, but still in popular landslide territory, historically.
As a comparative, John Anderson got 5,588,014 votes in 1980. Ralph Nader got 2,695,696 votes in 2000. That is a pathetic turn out for a 3rd party candidate . . . nearly 3 million less votes than John Anderson in 1980. And the media wasn't wringing their hands about John Anderson--indeed, CNN took the previous unheard of step of the delaying the Carter/Reagan debates to give John Anderson time to respond, during the debates, as if he was actually at the debates. Which he was not.
Even in 1996, Perot got 8,085,294 votes. Dole got 39,197,469. Together, that would have been 47,282,763 to Clinton's 47,401,185. Enough to have the Supreme Court award the election to Dole. Still, 8,085,294 is a much larger factor than 2,695,696. And Perot polled higher than Nader ever did . . . something like 18% at one point.
So the statement that Clinton would have won both elections is patently false. Against Dole, with CLinton running as an incumbent, yes. Without Perot, it is enormously unlikely that Clinton would have beat Bush. Again, Nader is this big deal, polling at 5% and with a final total of 2 million votes, 3 million less than John Anderson in 1980 and 17 million less than Perot . . . Well, the argument that Nader presented this huge threat to the 2 party system while Perot didn't does not hold water. The deciding factor is the political party negatively affected, at least in popular perception.
Nader, OTOH, probably did put Bush in the White House by splitting the
Democratic ticket in Florida.
Yup. Just like Perot put Clinton in the Whitehouse in 1992 (look at the state by state returns for the electoral breakdown--Clinton would have been nuked if less than half the Perot voters went to Bush and Perot courted likely Bush voters like nobody's business). Payback's a bitch, isn't it? ;)
The next liberal objection: Not that I care, but your example depends on all of the people who
voted for Perot voting for Bush or Dole.
The fact is, it depends on less that half the people in several states that went for Perot going for Bush, which exit polling at the time and subsequent polls have indicated would be an underestimate. Even if 1/3rd of the vote that went to Perot went to Bush in the popular election, if Clinton still took it it would be the only time in history there was that large a discrepancy between the final electoral count and the popular vote. It seems very unlikely, and intellectually dishonest, to say Perot was a lesser effect than Nader because a particular state was split dead even and Nader made the difference. While heated and close, so more visible and emotionally impactful, Perot did that same thing to Bush in '92, with a hell of a lot more votes, state after state after state. Add that to the fact that Perot spent a ton of money trashing George Bush and a lot less energy (and money) trashing Clinton and had a personal animus against George Herbert Walker, and went so far as to buy an hour of prime time television on ABC to pimp his candidacy and spent almost all of his money courting likely Bush voters, Republicans, evangelicals and disaffected conservatives, and it's just not rational to assert that Perot didn't cost Bush the 1992 election.
As I have documented, it would have taken all of them voting for Dole (which would not have happened) but it would have only taken 1/3rd of them voting for Bush. Given the circumstances, that's a very reasonable expectation.
Anecdote from the left: I know a
couple who voted for Perot who would have voted for Clinton and I
assume there must be others.
Oh, no doubt, it takes all kinds. There are people who would have voted for one or the other if Harry Browne hadn't run, etc., etc. Some Perotistas would have voted for Clinton. Less likely that many Naderites would have voted for Bush . . . a lot more likely that those, unconvinced by the constant and public attacks on Nader to abandon him, would have stayed home and not voted, period, or voted for another eco-ultra-liberal-socialist. But the 1/3rd threshold, given both the active extra negative campaigning (almost 2 against one at some points) and the appeal of southern-fried populist to the Christian Right and a lot of other Grand Old Party types. I knew plenty of people who were all Bushy, until they found lust in their heart for Perot. If that pretty pair of eyes hadn't shown up, they would have stayed faithful and true. ;)
Another objection from the left to the Perot factor idea: It also does not allow for the number of
people who would have said, "Screw it" and not voted at all.
It does. It accommodates 2/3rds of them. Not to mention the statistical probability of at least one big state going for Bush without the Perot factor . . . I am specific not to require all., but just a percentage (about 35%) of Perot voters going for Bush to give Bush the victory in '92.
Now, I'm not saying Nader wasn't a spoiler in 2000. Statistically, enough votes would have gone to Gore, in Florida, that Gore would have won Florida with thousands of votes to spare. No recounts. Only 3% of the votes for Nader, as few as they were, would have had to have gone to Gore, in Florida, for Gore to take the Whitehouse in the 2000 election. Probably at minimum 10% of those votes would have gone to Gore instead, as the lesser of two evils in the minds of those voters.
The next objection (from folks who embrace erratic and inconclusive models for global warming as hard fact): No one knows what the numbers
would have been in 92 or 96.
Well, no, you can't know for sure, in 92, 96, or 2000, but statistical likelihood makes to a frickin' good bet, and my central argument regarding the existence of a "Perot Factor" is about the disparity between the attacks and concerns over Nader and the lack thereof over Perot, and the attempt to assert that Perot was irrelevant to the results while Nader was crucial.
My assertion is that Perot was so influential that the Clinton victory was so decisive that it would be tough to notice, even if you wanted to. Without an exhaustive trip through the numbers, which I will make below.
More to the point, unless you knew Florida was going to happen before hand, all the polling data indicated Perot was going to be a much bigger factor than Nader, while still having no chance in hell of winning, so he would just be a spoiler, almost certainly for Bush. The idea that there was no big issue with Perot like there was with Nader because Perot "clearly" wasn't a "factor" . . . well, that's just absurd. There's nothing to back that up with.
Not that I object at all the the outcome on that basis, as Bush and Clinton had to earn their votes, just like Dubya and Gore, and if Nader or Perot was a factor, they didn't do their job convincing enough of the people that they were a better choice.
So, how do we establish that Perot was a spoiler? Really and tuly? Read the state returns. Perot cost Bush the election, period. To deny
it is wishful thinking. To say Nader did it, but Perot didn't, is
to apply an obvious double-standard. 19 million votes to 2 million votes. If half of Perot's votes
went to Bush, it's a popular victory of 12%! There hasn't been an
election in history where the electoral vote was the opposite of a
12% margin of popular victory. And the state returns bear it out. With even with half of what Perot got,
Bush would have gotten some 30-odd or more electoral votes than
Clinton, and taken the election. Even if 1/3rd of the Perot voters
swung to Bush, he would have taken it. If 1/3 of the Nader
voters swung to Gore, he still could have lost the election as it
recount stands (if the other Nader voters voted instead for Bush, which is not likely, but still, it's the argument the anti-Perot-Factor people make: that Perot split the vote evenly between Democrats and Republicans so, in truth, "it was like he wasn't even there at all".
While Florida went Bush, anyway, by 100,000 votes in 1992, it's worth
noting that Perot picked up over 1 million votes in Florida . . .
Clinton and Bush both got a few hundred thousand over 2 million . . .
had the ballots been extra confusing in Palm Beach County that year,
that million votes could have made the difference. By contrast, Nader
picked up 97,488 votes in Florida . . . less than 10% of what Perot
managed. It was decisive in this case, but if you go through
state-by-state returns, Perot, with 3/4 to 1/2 of the vote going to
Bush, if not him, was decisive in '92. Just, your guy was in, and
benefited from it, so why complain?
Unless the MSM and liberals were psychic, and could see a 300 vote difference in Florida determining the presidency, there is no way that the bitching about Nader was an objective, bi-partisan protest against diluting the
two-party system. Perot cost Bush the election in '92, and the risk
of that was very clear in '92--Perot was polling at 18% in some polls
at one point in time, light years above anything Nader could even hope to
have managed (and if you did the same math--Clinton's numbers vs. Bush's
numbers vs. Perots, you could see that a 1/2 to 3/4 shift of Perot
voters to Bush could easily make the difference in the election).
There were almost no complaints about that, because most of the news
media, if not overtly supporting Clinton, was at least plenty happy
to have him win, vs. Bush, Sr. Certainly, I recall no interviews of
Perot that took on the tone of the 11th hours interviews of Nader:
"So, the election is tomorrow, and you wake up, and Bush is president
because of you. Can you live with yourself?" "For the good of the
country, shouldn't you withdraw?" Yada, yada.
I haven't done an exhaustive state by state for 1996, because I
figured Clinton probably took it no matter, but it is interesting to
note the returns of one state . . . Florida!
In 1996, Clinton won Florida, 2,546,600 to 2,224,164 over Dole, or a
difference of 322,436 votes. Perot got 483,841 votes. If 3/4 of those
votes went to Dole, that would have been 362,881 extra votes for
Dole, giving Dole a lead of 40,445 votes, which would have given Dole
Florida. And some spiffy electoral votes, to boot.
Activity Room Accessories for Clinical, Nursing Home and Hospice Applications from DME Supply Group And here they come. Just some quick numbers for '92:
Arizona went to Clinton, 653,288 to 622,073. Perot got 112,072. If
just 1/3 of those Perot votes went to George H. W. Bush, Bush takes
Arizona and it's 8 electoral votes.
California went to Clinton, 5,121,325 to 3,630,574. A tidy victory of
1,490,751 votes. However, Perot got 2,296,006 votes in CA in '92. If
3/4 of those votes went to Bush instead of Perot, Bush would have
taken CA, and its 54 honkin' electoral votes.
Colarado went to Clinton, 629,681 to 562,850. A fairly decent victory
for Clinton of 66,831 votes. Perot got 366,010 votes. If just a
paltry 1/4 of those votes had gone to Bush, Bush would have taken
Colorado by some 25,000 odd votes. That would have given Colorado to
Bush, and its 8 electoral votes.
Connecticut went to Clinton, 682,318 to 578,313. Perot got 348,771
votes. Same as Colorado: a meager 1/4 of Perot voters voting for
Bush, Bush takes Connecticut and its 8 electoral votes.
Delaware: 126,054 to 102,313, Clinton. Perot took 59,213. If half
that went to Bush, Delaware goes Bush, and 3 more electoral votes.
Georgia went to Clinton in '92, 1,008,966 to 995,252. Perot took
308,657. If less than 1/3 of that vote went to Bush, Bush would have
taken Georgia, and its 13 electoral votes.
Iowa went to Clinton, 586,353 to 504,891 for G.H.W.Bush . . . Perot
scored 253,468 votes. If a little less than 1/3rd of those went to
Bush, Bush would have taken Iowa, and it's 7 electoral votes.
Kentucky? 665,104 for Clinton to 617,178 for Bush. Perot got 203,994
votes. Less than 1/4th of those tips Kentucky in Bush country, and
Bush would have taken Kentucky's 8 electoral votes.
Louisianna: 815,971 Clinton to 733,386 Bush, 211,478 Perot. You do
the math. If Bush scored half of the Perotistas, Bush takes Lousiana
and its 9 votes.
Maine went Clinton, 263,420 to 206,504 for Bush. Perot took 206,820.
1/4th of those to Bush, Bush takes Maine and 4 more electorals.
Maryland went to Clinton, 988,571 to 707,094 for Bush. If pretty much
all of Perot's 281,414 votes went to Bush, it would have been a dead
heat, with Clinton still taking it by 63 votes.
If all of Massachusetts' Perot votes went to Bush, Bush would have
won the state by 100,000 votes.
Michigan went to Clinton, 1,871,182 to 1,554,940. 1/3 of Perot's
824,813 votes bring Michigan, and its 18 electoral votes, into Bush
country.
Minnesota went to Clinton, 1,020,997 to 747,841. However, 3/4 of
Perot's 562,506 votes would have swung Minnesota, and it's 10
electorals, for Bush.
Missouri went to Clinton, 1,053,873 to 811,159. Half of Perot's
518,741 votes, and Missouri and its 11 electoral votes go Bush.
Clinton took Montana by 10,000 votes. Perot got 107,225 votes. If 10
percent of Perot voters took Bush instead, Bush takes Montana in 92,
and it's 3 electoral votes.
Nevada went Clinton, 189,148 to 175,828 . . . about 14,000 votes.
Perot got 132,580 in Nevada. If 12% of that had gone to Bush instead,
Bush takes Nevada, and the 4 Electoral votes.
New Hampshire went to Clinton. 209,040 to 202,484, a difference of
some 7000 votes. Perot won 121,337 votes in New Hampshire. In this
case, about 8% of the vote that went to Perot going to Bush gives
Bush the victory, and NH's 4 electoral votes.
New Jersey went Clinton with 1,436,206 to 1,356,865. A difference of
79,341 votes. Perot got 521,829 votes in NJ in '92. Less than 1/4th
of that to Bush, and Bush would have taken New Jersey and its 15
electoral votes.
New Mexico went to Clinton, 261,617 to 212,824. If a little more than
half of Perot's 91,895 votes went to Bush instead, Bush takes New
Mexico and its 5 electoral votes. At this point, even not counting
California, Bush wins with Perot, and we aren't even done yet.
Ohio and it's 21 electoral votes went to Clinton, with a 90,000 vote
victory. However, Perot got over a million votes. 1/10th of that vote
to Bush, and Bush takes the state instead. At this point, without the
Perot factor, Bush has beat Clinton.
Oregon went to Clinton, 621,314 to 475,757. Perot got 354,091. If
most of that had gone Bush, Bush would have taken Oregon. But,
assuming he didn't, he would still beat Clinton, absent the Perot
factor.
Pennsylvania goes Clinton, 2,239,164 to 1,791,841. Perot wins 902,667
votes. A little under half that to Bush, and Bush would have taken
Pennsylvania.
Rhode Island goes Clinton, 213,299 to 131,601. A decisive victory,
although if Perot's 105,045 votes had gone to Bush, Bush would have
won (although, in cases where all of Perot's vote would have gone to
the GOP, I assume Clinton gets it . . . 1/2 or under is the yard
stick, and Bush wins using that measure).
Tennessee goes Clinton, 933,521 to 841,300. Perot scored 199,968
votes. Half that to Bush, Bush takes Tennessee, and its 11 electoral
votes.
In Vermont, 133,592 to 88,122 Clinton. If most of Perot's 65,991 had
gone to Bush, Bush would have taken it.
Washington State: 993,037 Clinton, 731,234 Bush, 541,780 Perot. Just
a hair over half of Perot votes to Bush, Bush takes the state. And 11
more electoral votes . . .
West Virginia, 331,001 Clinton, 241,974 Bush, 108,829 Perot. If Bush
had gotten all the Perot voters, he wins.
Wisconsin, 1,041,066 to 930,855. 544,479 to Perot, Bush takes the
state if under half the Perot vote went to him. And 11 more electoral
votes. Additionally, if half the popular Perot vote went to Bush, he
would have won with a 12% margin of victory, making the win decisive.
By contrast, there were very few states where the Nader vote could
have possibly made the difference. Florida, yes, and he did make the
difference. But Perot made the difference in a dozen states, and
effectively put Clinton in the Whitehouse in 1992.
State returns + Perot courting Bush voters + Perot targeting most of his advertising against the Bush administration + Perot's Kentucky-Fried-Billionaire-Populism = Perot was a spoiler, and cost Bush the election.
Seriously, they are. Which is a good thing. Using a modern secular myth to justify looting the private sector and punishing the tax payer is reprehensible, and the more people who wake up to the same, the better.
The Jawa Report has a breakdown on how Axelrod and the Obama campaign are trying to make fake grassroots campaigns to smear Sarah Palin, while, at the same time, leaving a trail of smoking guns everywhere. No wonder the left like's to tell us they are the smartest and most ethical folks out there!
The Journal of Feminist Insight blog has a breakdown of softballs Charlie Gibson tossed Obama vs. the prosecutorial nature of his questions for Palin. Pretty damning stuff, indeed. For Obama: How does it feel to win? For Palin: Do you have enough qualifications for the job your seeking? And on and on and on.
Not classy, Charlie.
Apparently to folks of the left, the ends will always justify the means. Ruin people, lie, cheat, steal, anything short of murder (and, hmm, who knows, maybe that, too) is okay if it means you get universal healthcare and progressive taxation. Learning that, on the left, the end always justifies the means is why I'm not a liberal today.
