Why didn't he win a second term?

It's the economy, stoopid

Split vote between conservatives. No one wanted Clinton but the Ross Perot came around and split the vote

Hmm... sounds familiar.

not history. 25 year rule

I have bad news for you.

>2017-1992=

Hillary sold bill's soul to Moloch.

>President from January 20, 1989 – January 20, 1993
>elections must have happened in 1992 according to you

really got those neurons going.

@2511859
Not getting any (You)'s with that shitty bait

Nope, see

>events happening over 25 years ago count as less than 25 years ago!

no you

*Pukes on u*

100% because of Ross Perot

This. Ross Perot/ thread

"It's the economy stupid"

>Us General elections was in 2016
>Barack Obama presidency ended in 2017

I don't have a problem bu akshually technically it doesn't meet the 25 year rule until November.

It did happen in 1992

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992

Yeah, economy always stupid, demand is not predictable, therefore economists alike shamans. Economy is not a normal machine.

ok whatever. March 1992 is 25 years ago, everything after belongs on /pol/

MY

If he won, how would the Balkans have changed?

100% false

are you dumb? Its commonly accepted that he drew power away from Bush. Simply put it if Perot didn't run Bush would have won.

In addition to the stuff already mentioned in this thread, Clinton was just flat out more charismatic than HW. Plus it's really difficult to hold the white house for four consecutive terms.

It's actually been shown in peer-reviewed political science research for the last 20 years that Perot drew about evenly from both candidates. Personally, I don't exactly agree with that since Perot definitely leaned more conservative than Clinton.

Of course, the electoral college is what matters. And in the key states that won Clinton the election, Perot's vote share would've had to almost completely gone to Bush.

Hopefully this settles the debate. The reality is that Bush Sr. had a poor economy (Fed's fault) and screwed up a few obvious times. Clinton was also very charismatic, like Obama, and the US already had an old Republican guy for 12 years.

Plus, the Soviet Union was dead.

>The effect of Ross Perot's candidacy has been a contentious point of debate for many years. In the ensuing months after the election, various Republicans asserted that Perot had acted as a spoiler, enough to the detriment of Bush to lose him the election. While many disaffected conservatives may have voted for Ross Perot to protest Bush's tax increase, further examination of the Perot vote in the Election Night exit polls not only showed that Perot siphoned votes nearly equally among Bush and Clinton,[31][32][33][34] but roughly two-thirds of those voters who cited Bush's broken "No New Taxes" pledge as "very important" (25%) voted for Bill Clinton.[35] A mathematical look at the voting numbers reveals that to win the electoral vote Bush would have had to win 10 of the 11 states Clinton won which were decided by less than five percentage points. For Bush to earn a majority of the popular vote, he would have needed 12.2% of Perot's 18.9% of the vote, 65% of Perot's support base.[36] State exit polls suggested that Perot did not alter the electoral college count, except potentially in one state (Ohio), which nonetheless showed a result in the margin of error.[37] Furthermore, Perot was most popular in states that strongly favored either Clinton or Bush, limiting his real electoral impact for either candidate.[38]

>Poor economy
>It was the Fed, not Bush, he dindu nothing.
He had exclusive control over the Fed for 12 years. It was his screwup.

>He had exclusive control over the Fed for 12 years.

LIPS

>there you go again
>for some reason everyone masturbates over that line as though it means something profound
I watched the debate on youtube, Carter came off as competent while Reagan looked like a bumbling fool. Why are republicans so shallow?

>Carter came off as competent
His 4 years in office showed otherwise whereas Reagan's tenure as governor showed him to be competent.

>Reagan's tenure as governor showed him to be competent.
[citation needed]
>huge deficit from military spending
>cut taxes for the rich raised them for the poor
>war on drugs
>pandering and empowering the christian right
>abandons any regulation on fossil fuels, leading to the american car industry getting outflanked by foreign competitors who swooped into the market with more reliable and fuel efficient cars.
>iran-contra affair
>turning blind eye to the AIDs epidemic
but, hey, at least we invaded a tiny Caribbean island and won, right?

Anyway, we're not discussing Carter's failure in office, we're talking about debate performance.

Ross Perot, basically.

Expectation gap theory
He promised too much and was burned because of it
>using poli sci to justify anything

When will this stupid meme die? Exit polls showed Perot drew equally from Bush and Clinton. When Perot was leading in the polls, Clinton was in third, and when Perot dropped out, Clinton surged into a massive, like 20 point, lead over Bush.

If anything Perot probably took more from Clinton. Which would make sense because Perot was pretty liberal. He was pro-choice and supported single payer ("Medicare for all"). His main campaign point was being anti-NAFTA and protectionist, but that can cut both ways. The only things that were conservative about him was that he supported the drug war (which Clinton did too, so whatever) and he was a deficit hawk (but then again his proposals to reduce the deficit were mainly military cuts and tax raises ie. closer to Democrats)

>leading to the american car industry getting outflanked by foreign competitors who swooped into the market with more reliable and fuel efficient cars.

Already happening 1973-1980. Technically even further back if you include europeans.

>but roughly two-thirds of those voters who cited Bush's broken "No New Taxes" pledge as "very important" (25%) voted for Bill Clinton

You're all welcome. And most of you seem underage.

>as governor
Yeah, he did all that as governor of California. You have the best reading comprehension I've ever seen.

>Anyway, we're not discussing Carter's failure in office, we're talking about debate performance
You said Carter's debate performance made him seem competent, but 4 years of Jimmy Carter proved to the American public that this was not the case whereas Reagan's tenure as governor of California made him seem competent to the American public.

A more entertaining candidate came along. The most entertaining or charismatic candidate has won every election since 1896.

>Yeah, he did all that as governor of California.
woops
>Reagan's tenure as governor of California made him seem competent to the American public.
ok

>"I feel your pain"

GHWB was an autist who couldn't publicly speak to save his life and failed to inspire people. Look at the debates between him and Bill Clinton, he can't speak on the same level as ordinary people. Clinton was a much more empathetic public speaker who could reach out and communicate with the common man.

Also Ross Perot.

The real question is how did Bush sr win in 1988? Probably riding off Reagan's coattails

>kicked from office for one lie
Why were the standards of people in the 90s so high?

Burgers are very autistic over the subject of taxation.

Because he missed out on the golden opportunity to invade Iraq and remove Saddam without the whole world and lefties REEEEing. Left it to his son to do what was inevitable and should have been done twenty years earlier.

this post best post

>hunk dory

Miss you, daddy

I actually think he would have won if Lee Atwater hadn't died, dude could have pulled some heavy dirt on the Clintons.

naw, he found god and apologized for a buncha the shit he did while campaigning

Why didn't we listen?