Talk:United States presidential election, 1992

Why don't we just use the word majority instead of absolute majority? It seems to me that's simpler and less confusing, since absolute majority, if I remember correctly, is the total out of all eligible respondants. Learn together 14:54, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

That makes sense. -Additioner 14:46, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

The Economy

Was the economy slumping because of inflation? I seem to recall that inflation, while not as low as it had been during most of the Reagan's years, was well below the Carter levels. The economy was slumping because of standard economic cycles. It was a temporary recession that had disappeared by the time of the election, although that information was not known until after Clinton was in office. Learn together 22:28, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

You are correct; it had nothing to do with inflation. - JasonAQuest 19:10, 12 January 2008 (EST)

a backlash against 12 years of a conservative presidency

This is disputable; Clinton only got 42% and a deficit hawk like Perot can hardly be considered un-conservative. It simply was Democrats winning out in the bidding war for domestic spending priorities in the post-Cold War era. Republicans and conservatives can never out-bid or out spend Democrats and liberals on domestic social spending. Rob Smith 20:39, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

the backlash was seen in Bush's very poor showing--he lost millions of votes he had won in 1992. The analysis is from Lipset, one of the leading conservative political scientists.

RJJensen 20:41, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

This statement is just a repackaged paraphrase of a Clinton slogan, "12 years of neglect," which 58% of voters rejected. FWIW, Clinton is remembered as a conservative Democrat (besides being 'the First Black President') who balanced the budget. As to Lipset, Lipset is not 58% of American voters.

And further, 16,000,000 more voters voted against Bill Clinton rather than for Bill Clinton in 1992. Contrasted with GW Bush in 2000 where only 500,000 more voted against rather than for. No way can these facts to be obscured. Rob Smith 20:49, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

The problem is Bush--everyone knew him after 12 years (almost nobody knew Clinton). The backlash came from conservative perot voters who were angry that after 12 years of conervative rule the deficit was worse than ever. I'll rephrase it.RJJensen 20:58, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

And this statement, "After the election, economic numbers came out showing that the recession had actually ended before the election, but the public did not have this information when they voted. simply is not true. The Bureau of Economic Anylsis declared the mild recession over in March 1991, eighteen months prior to the election. the liberal/commie media didn't highlight it, but rather spewed DNC & Clinton trash as facts. Rob Smith 21:01, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

Well the text follows Alan Greenspan, who says "the economy was recovering, just not in time to save the election." (Age of Turbulence p 122) The Bush's poor speeches and his sad advertising campaign should have been hollering success, but instead ignored the economy. 21:26, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

Point is, in the pre-Windows 95 Internet age, all the information was available, only the mainstream sources that people depend on not only did not report it, they did report Clinton's assertions such "worst economy in 50 years" etc. without challenging it. Today there's things like Fact Check, etc., in those days it was pure unadulterated media bias. Rob Smith 21:44, 10 September 2009 (EDT)