What the hell happened?

What the hell happened?

Wasted digits on something that's strictly speaking not history according to this boards rules. (And basically the generally rule of thumb). Learn some patience and ask again in November or at least do your own research and present more than just a fucking 4 word post.

It's the economy stupid.

>Historic elections don't belong on Veeky Forums

The rule is no events less than 25 years old.

Ross Perot, and G H W Bush running a bad campaign.

Don't take that literally. It cuts out the fall of the Soviet Union, the Gulf Wars, the Yugoslav Wars, etc. Those things absolutely belong on Veeky Forums, alongside the 1992 election.

>Don't take that literally. It cuts out the fall of the Soviet Union, the Gulf Wars,

No it doesn't...

>bitching about the 25 year rule to an exact month

Well Bill was from Arkansas so that probably helped swing states like Georgia and Kentucky

2017 - 1992 = 25.

Oh shit you're right, I'm bad at math.

This is pretty accurate. Perot split the vote, and George H.W. Bush was counting on the Gulf War victory to swing him into re-election. Clinton's (public) status as a Southerner also helped him win several Southern states.

>2017 - 1992 = 25

Right, and that happened after July 5, 1992.

>Perot split the vote

Perot poached roughly the same amount of votes from Clinton and Bush. He didn't change the outcome.

The campaign season began the year before with the first announced candidates, and the primaries began in February. The US presidential election is a year long circle jerk, it's more than just one day.

Also the number 25 only has 2 significant figures, therefore it is more correct to say 25 years than to say 24 years and seven months, since that would require another significant figure. Since we are in the seventh month, we can safely round up.

>not realizing that you can always skirt the 25-year language in all circumstances whatever by attributing what you want to talk about to the "humanities" side of things, "social studies", etc

I can start a thread about Trump or Harry Potter or violent crime today and it falls within the board's purview because I say. Because it's not just History, It's "History AND...".

Autism

While it's true he took from both equally at the national level, is it possible he flipped any states? I haven't done the "deep dive" into the numbers.

>Bush says he won't raise any taxes
>Proceeds to raise taxes

No other issue can rile up voters like taxes, and for all his faults, Clinton understood that.

If you died right now no one on this website would feel a void due to your missing posts

>What the hell happened?

A combination of factors.

1. Bush broke his tax pledge. During the 1988 campaign Bush made pledge about not making new taxes. Economic necessity forced him to do it anyway, but no one forgot or forgave. Today America can elect a pathological liar and no one cares but back then people still somewhat held their politician accountable for their promises. Although technically speaking Bush didn't lie. He kept his promise about no new taxes, he 'only' raised the existing ones.

2. The economic necessity that forced the new taxes. Economy was sluggish and recovery was slow to come. People blamed the then-current administration, although to be fair that was more Reagan's fault that Bush's.

4. USSR fell and people felt that Bush's main strength, i.e. foreign policy, was no longer relevant. Americans wanted their government to focus on domestic issues.

5. Clinton had excellent electoral campaign and successfully presented himself as an all-American guy who knows the common people's problems. Moreover, he was young, sexy, vital, talked well and made great impression. Comparing to Clinton, Bush acted like a wooden doll and he time and time again was exposed as someone who lived a sheltered life away from common problems.


Perrot was not a factor. He actually took more votes from Dems than from GOP.

Perot actually led in the polls until he abruptly dropped out before re-entering the race and chose an obviously senile man as his running mate.

It's debatable who he took more votes from, but based on his campaign platform and how states voted compared to 1988, I suspect he took from Bush in the South and West (the general anti-establishment message appealing to disaffected conservatives) and from Clinton in the Great Lakes and Northeast (union Democrats angry at Clinton's centrism and support of free trade).

Ok. To be more precise, I meant that Perot did more damage to Clinton than to Bush. The areas where Perot took votes from Bush were on average still secure for GOP, while Dem lead hanged by a thread in many places.

this

we can't speak of it until november 3rd (or 4th depending on when polls in hawaii closed)

To be fair he actually said "no new taxes" and didn't add any new ones, he just raised existing taxes.
Perot should have won though, I honestly wouldn't doubt if they CIA pulled some shit on him given that HW Bush was their director for a while.