Changes

Two weeks before the election, Perot began to climb in the polls again; his numbers reached 20%. But then more bizarre behavior puzzled Americans as to the state of his mental stability. On TV nine days before the election, and at a press conference the following day, he revealed for the first time an ugly side to his personality. He was deeply suspicious of hidden enemies all around him.  He claimed that he had pulled out in July because he had been warned that the Bush campaign would try to disrupt his daughter's wedding. He spoke of a supposed attempt on his life in 1970 by some Black Panthers who, he said, had been sent by the North Vietnamese.

Two weeks before the election, Perot began to climb in the polls again; his numbers reached 20%. But then more bizarre behavior puzzled Americans as to the state of his mental stability. On TV nine days before the election, and at a press conference the following day, he revealed for the first time an ugly side to his personality. He was deeply suspicious of hidden enemies all around him.  He claimed that he had pulled out in July because he had been warned that the Bush campaign would try to disrupt his daughter's wedding. He spoke of a supposed attempt on his life in 1970 by some Black Panthers who, he said, had been sent by the North Vietnamese.

On election day he won 19% and enabled Clinton to score a clean majority in the electoral college.  

The Perot voters were very similar in demographic profile to the overall electorate,with a somewhat smaller percent of minorities, those over 60, and those with postgraduate education.  They differed from Bush and Clinton voters in their alienation from major institutions; they distrusted politics, business and the military.  They were more pessimistic about the future, and were especially worried about the federal deficit.<ref> William A. Niskanen, "A Vote for Perot was a Vote for the Status Quo." ''Cato Journal'' 1998 18(1): 85-91  in [[EBSCO]]</ref>

The 1992 election was unique for a number of reasons: a perception that economic conditions were worse than they actually were, which harmed incumbent President Bush; a strong third-party candidate in Perot; a backlash against 12 years of a conservative presidency that generated ever-larger deficits; and, perhaps most importantly, Bill Clinton's ability to unite not only the Democratic Party, but a number of heterogeneous coalitions, much as Franklin Roosevelt, also a consummate politician, did in the [[New Deal Coalition]] after 1932.<ref> Seymour Martin Lipset, "The Significance of the 1992 Election." ''PS: Political Science & Politics'' 1993 26(1): 7-16. 1049-0965 </ref>

The 1992 election was unique for a number of reasons: a perception that economic conditions were worse than they actually were, which harmed incumbent President Bush; a strong third-party candidate in Perot; a backlash against 12 years of a conservative presidency that generated ever-larger deficits; and, perhaps most importantly, Bill Clinton's ability to unite not only the Democratic Party, but a number of heterogeneous coalitions, much as Franklin Roosevelt, also a consummate politician, did in the [[New Deal Coalition]] after 1932.<ref> Seymour Martin Lipset, "The Significance of the 1992 Election." ''PS: Political Science & Politics'' 1993 26(1): 7-16. 1049-0965 </ref>