No Perot Didn't Cost Bush the Election

Perot did not cost Bush the election:

“Research gathered, then published, in the book Change and Continuity in the 1992 elections shows Perot pulled an equal amount of votes from both political parties.

"His presence in the campaign getting 19 percent of the vote in '92 demonstrated disaffection by a lot of people with both major parties. But he probably fairly drew evenly from both candidates,” said Crocket.

The rest as they say, is history.”

https://spectrumlocalnews.com/tx/san-antonio/news/2019/07/09/ross-perot-often-credited-for-costing-bush--92-election





______

Perot Falsely Portrayed as "Spoiler"

Vagne - Check it out: "The Economy and ‘Read My Lips,’ Not Ross Perot, Cost President Bush His 1992 Re-Election  -  Dallas billionaire Ross Perot is often miscast as a spoiler in the election that saw Bill Clinton replace George H.W. Bush in the White House."

"Here’s the truth. Exit polls showed Perot drew votes almost evenly from Clinton and Bush."

https://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/george-hw-bush-lose-1992-reelection-ross-perot/

Did Perot Put Clinton into the WH?

Every so often, the hard core right wingers try to diminish or belittle President Clinton's 1992 election. They claim that it was Perot who caused Clinton to be elected. Thank goodness for Bob Somerby at Daily Howler for recalling this piece in the Post:

" ''Ross Perot's presence on the 1992 presidential ballot did not change the outcome of the election, according to an analysis of the second choices of Perot supporters.

The analysis, based on exit polls conducted by Voter Research & Surveys (VRS) for the major news organizations, indicated that in Perot's absence, only Ohio would have have shifted from the Clinton column to the Bush column. This would still have left Clinton with a healthy 349-to-189 majority in the electoral college.''

From EJ Dionne's “Perot Seen Not Affecting Vote Outcome” - Washington Post; November 8, 1992"

Back to Top