Where was Bush 41 at same time in '92?

[GOPhound]

I've searched the web and can't seem to find any polls from this time in '92 of Bush 41 versus Clinton.  I'm interested because it seems to me that Bush 43 is in much better shape at this point than his father was.  

It's basically even now, and it seems all the bad news is out.  Death in Iraq, 911 commission, negative books, etc.  Yes, there can be, and probably will be, some unexpected events. But I was wondering if an incumbent president has ever lost an election while being tied or ahead as late as April.  

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Bush 41 was clearly a weak candidate in April 92, but the polls were confusing due to the 3-party dynamics.

I think at this point in '92, the Dem primary had JUST been decided, and Clinton was not yet clearly a strong candidate.  In fact, I think Perot was narrowly leading many of the polls, with Clinton in third.  Clinton went ahead for good in June when he announced Gore as his running mate and Perot (temporarily) dropped out.

[ShapeShifter]

I've searched the web and can't seem to find any polls from this time in '92 of Bush 41 versus Clinton.  I'm interested because it seems to me that Bush 43 is in much better shape at this point than his father was.  

It's basically even now, and it seems all the bad news is out.  Death in Iraq, 911 commission, negative books, etc.  Yes, there can be, and probably will be, some unexpected events. But I was wondering if an incumbent president has ever lost an election while being tied or ahead as late as April.  

http://www.gallup.com/content/default.aspx?ci=1255

Clinton was at 26 % at this time, so, Kerry is doing a lot better.

[GOPhound]

I've searched the web and can't seem to find any polls from this time in '92 of Bush 41 versus Clinton.  I'm interested because it seems to me that Bush 43 is in much better shape at this point than his father was.  

It's basically even now, and it seems all the bad news is out.  Death in Iraq, 911 commission, negative books, etc.  Yes, there can be, and probably will be, some unexpected events. But I was wondering if an incumbent president has ever lost an election while being tied or ahead as late as April.  

http://www.gallup.com/content/default.aspx?ci=1255

Clinton was at 26 % at this time, so, Kerry is doing a lot better.

Thanks for the link.  Yes in mid-April Bush was ahead 41-26 over Clinton, but Clinton + Perot actually was ahead of Bush by 10, 51-41.  So really, even though Bush was in the lead, it was clear at that point that he was unpopular.  Bush's 41% was close to the 38% he ended up getting.

Like you said, '92 was a screwy year with Perot in the mix, it's hard to compare that year and now.  What's clear is that people seemed to make their minds up about Clinton at the Democratic convention.  He vaulted out way in front and never looked back.  It will be be interesting to see what the polls look like after this year's conventions.

[ShapeShifter]

I've searched the web and can't seem to find any polls from this time in '92 of Bush 41 versus Clinton.  I'm interested because it seems to me that Bush 43 is in much better shape at this point than his father was.  

It's basically even now, and it seems all the bad news is out.  Death in Iraq, 911 commission, negative books, etc.  Yes, there can be, and probably will be, some unexpected events. But I was wondering if an incumbent president has ever lost an election while being tied or ahead as late as April.  

http://www.gallup.com/content/default.aspx?ci=1255

Clinton was at 26 % at this time, so, Kerry is doing a lot better.

Thanks for the link.  Yes in mid-April Bush was ahead 41-26 over Clinton, but Clinton + Perot actually was ahead of Bush by 10, 51-41.  So really, even though Bush was in the lead, it was clear at that point that he was unpopular.  Bush's 41% was close to the 38% he ended up getting.

Like you said, '92 was a screwy year with Perot in the mix, it's hard to compare that year and now.  What's clear is that people seemed to make their minds up about Clinton at the Democratic convention.  He vaulted out way in front and never looked back.  It will be be interesting to see what the polls look like after this year's conventions.

All I know is that '92 and '88 and 00' is not 04'

[© Tweed the Younger]

Perot had an 8-point lead in May 1992.  I wonder if that big lead scared him off, a he probably didn't want to be president.

PEROT IN 1992

[© Tweed the Younger]

Clinton 54-38% lead right before Perot re-entered should end any speculation that Bush could have won.

[ShapeShifter]

Perot had an 8-point lead in May 1992.  I wonder if that big lead scared him off, a he probably didn't want to be president.

PEROT IN 1992

I think he was hired by the Clinton people.

[© Tweed the Younger]

Perot had an 8-point lead in May 1992.  I wonder if that big lead scared him off, a he probably didn't want to be president.

PEROT IN 1992

I think he was hired by the Clinton people.

no..

What I'm saying is, Perot really didn't want to be president, he just wanted to make a difference.  So he dropped out when he took the lead.

He may have won if he stayed in

[zachman]

Perot had an 8-point lead in May 1992.  I wonder if that big lead scared him off, a he probably didn't want to be president.

PEROT IN 1992

I think he was hired by the Clinton people.

no..

What I'm saying is, Perot really didn't want to be president, he just wanted to make a difference.  So he dropped out when he took the lead.

He may have won if he stayed in

That would have been great for our democracy. Overall I'd be angered if Perot became President, I guess its the 30 extra school days idea.

[© Tweed the Younger]

He wouldn't have been able to implement the 30 more days, it wouldn't pass through congress...

Perot would have been a very good president, the economy would have boomed past what it did with Clinton.

[ShapeShifter]

He wouldn't have been able to implement the 30 more days, it wouldn't pass through congress...

Perot would have been a very good president, the economy would have boomed past what it did with Clinton.

how so?

[© Tweed the Younger]

He wouldn't have been able to implement the 30 more days, it wouldn't pass through congress...

Perot would have been a very good president, the economy would have boomed past what it did with Clinton.

how so?

He was a businessman, he would have known how to manage the economy.

[ShapeShifter]

He wouldn't have been able to implement the 30 more days, it wouldn't pass through congress...

Perot would have been a very good president, the economy would have boomed past what it did with Clinton.

how so?

He was a businessman, he would have known how to manage the economy.

okay, we went over this before. Remeber? Bloomberg.

[© Tweed the Younger]

He wouldn't have been able to implement the 30 more days, it wouldn't pass through congress...

Perot would have been a very good president, the economy would have boomed past what it did with Clinton.

how so?

He was a businessman, he would have known how to manage the economy.

okay, we went over this before. Remeber? Bloomberg.

we has differing position on this issue, lets leave it at that.

(9-11 couldn't have helped the NYC economy...)

[ShapeShifter]

He wouldn't have been able to implement the 30 more days, it wouldn't pass through congress...

Perot would have been a very good president, the economy would have boomed past what it did with Clinton.

how so?

He was a businessman, he would have known how to manage the economy.

okay, we went over this before. Remeber? Bloomberg.

we has differing position on this issue, lets leave it at that.

(9-11 couldn't have helped the NYC economy...)

Okay, agree.

[Lunar]

He wouldn't have been able to implement the 30 more days, it wouldn't pass through congress...

Perot would have been a very good president, the economy would have boomed past what it did with Clinton.

how so?

He would put the economy in front of many other things such as education or foreign relations every time they clashed.

[GOPhound]

I've searched the web and can't seem to find any polls from this time in '92 of Bush 41 versus Clinton.  I'm interested because it seems to me that Bush 43 is in much better shape at this point than his father was.  

It's basically even now, and it seems all the bad news is out.  Death in Iraq, 911 commission, negative books, etc.  Yes, there can be, and probably will be, some unexpected events. But I was wondering if an incumbent president has ever lost an election while being tied or ahead as late as April.  

http://www.gallup.com/content/default.aspx?ci=1255

Clinton was at 26 % at this time, so, Kerry is doing a lot better.

Thanks for the link.  Yes in mid-April Bush was ahead 41-26 over Clinton, but Clinton + Perot actually was ahead of Bush by 10, 51-41.  So really, even though Bush was in the lead, it was clear at that point that he was unpopular.  Bush's 41% was close to the 38% he ended up getting.

Like you said, '92 was a screwy year with Perot in the mix, it's hard to compare that year and now.  What's clear is that people seemed to make their minds up about Clinton at the Democratic convention.  He vaulted out way in front and never looked back.  It will be be interesting to see what the polls look like after this year's conventions.

All I know is that '92 and '88 and 00' is not 04'

Agreed, no two elections are exactly the same, times change, issues change, demographics change.  But we can still learn a lot about what might happen by looking at the past.  I'm still trying to figure out which election this one will be closest too.

BTW, I think Perot would have been a terrible president because he was anti-NAFTA.  I detest Bill Clinton but give him credit for supporting NAFTA.  The econony would not have boomed the way it did without free trade fueling it.

[Gustaf]

I've searched the web and can't seem to find any polls from this time in '92 of Bush 41 versus Clinton.  I'm interested because it seems to me that Bush 43 is in much better shape at this point than his father was.  

It's basically even now, and it seems all the bad news is out.  Death in Iraq, 911 commission, negative books, etc.  Yes, there can be, and probably will be, some unexpected events. But I was wondering if an incumbent president has ever lost an election while being tied or ahead as late as April.  

http://www.gallup.com/content/default.aspx?ci=1255

Clinton was at 26 % at this time, so, Kerry is doing a lot better.

Thanks for the link.  Yes in mid-April Bush was ahead 41-26 over Clinton, but Clinton + Perot actually was ahead of Bush by 10, 51-41.  So really, even though Bush was in the lead, it was clear at that point that he was unpopular.  Bush's 41% was close to the 38% he ended up getting.

Like you said, '92 was a screwy year with Perot in the mix, it's hard to compare that year and now.  What's clear is that people seemed to make their minds up about Clinton at the Democratic convention.  He vaulted out way in front and never looked back.  It will be be interesting to see what the polls look like after this year's conventions.

All I know is that '92 and '88 and 00' is not 04'

Agreed, no two elections are exactly the same, times change, issues change, demographics change.  But we can still learn a lot about what might happen by looking at the past.  I'm still trying to figure out which election this one will be closest too.

BTW, I think Perot would have been a terrible president because he was anti-NAFTA.  I detest Bill Clinton but give him credit for supporting NAFTA.  The econony would not have boomed the way it did without free trade fueling it.

It depends on what way one means 'being closest to'. The last time a president was reelected in a close election was Woodrow Wilson in 1916...

I think it will be somewhat similar to 1988, but with Kerry being closer in the popular vote and MUCH closer in the EC.

[Sibboleth]

I'm convinced that 2004 will be like... 2004

[Gustaf]

I'm convinced that 2004 will be like... 2004

That's going out on a limb...

[angus]

I'm convinced that 2004 will be like... 2004

That's the most accurate post on this thread.  We all have a habit of classifying new phenomena according to old rules.  It's a bad habit.

[Gustaf]

I'm convinced that 2004 will be like... 2004

That's the most accurate post on this thread.  We all have a habit of classifying new phenomena according to old rules.  It's a bad habit.

Well, it's the only way by which we can predict anything, no?

[angus]

Thomas Alva Edison was a great inventor, credited with the light bulb and the 'gramophone' among other things.  He didn't finish high school.  His teachers thought he was a dunce.  It is wonderful, for all of us, that he didn't subcribe to those strict rules his teachers tried to teach him.  

Predictions should come from clarivoyance, if you're so endowed.  If you are not clarivoyant, your predictions are mostly just for fun.  

[Gustaf]

Thomas Alva Edison was a great inventor, credited with the light bulb and the 'gramophone' among other things.  He didn't finish high school.  His teachers thought he was a dunce.  It is wonderful, for all of us, that he didn't subcribe to those strict rules his teachers tried to teach him.  

Predictions should come from clarivoyance, if you're so endowed.  If you are not clarivoyant, your predictions are mostly just for fun.  

Well...yes, but admitting that makes it much less fun...we all need a lie to live on.