Talk:United States presidential election, 1992/Archive 1

NPOV?
I was wondering about the statement "Perot crusaded against the national debt, tapping vague fears of deficits that has been part of American political rhetoric since the 1790s." To me that implies that perhaps the fear of the deficit itself was unfounded and reactionary, and therefore that Ross Perot's emphasis on it was invalid and simply, well, vague. Also, I think there should be a citation asserting that this "vague fear" really began in the 1790s, as stated. If a citation can be found that demonstrates the "vagueness," the "beginning in the 1790s," and Perot's "tapping" of this fear, then the statement is fine. Otherwise, I think it should be worked on, or perhaps expanded, somehow. I'm a bit of a Wikin00b, though, so I'm not sure how to go about doing this. Hmmmmm382 19:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Ricky Ray Rector
I was wondering if linking the Ricky Ray Rector article would be related and unbiased. I recall it making a fair to middling splash in the news concerning the race and Clinton. Thanks! Zenosparadox 03:55, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Perot leading in polling
What does this mean?

Perot was ahead in the polls for a period of almost two months - a feat not accomplished by an independent candidate in almost 100 years.

This seems to be saying Perot was the first independent to enjoy an extended lead in the polls in nearly a century. But according to the article on opinion polling, the practice really only started on a national level in 1916. So who exactly is this referring to? I would have guessed TR in 1912, but that predates the Literary Digest poll. And there wasn't another significant third-party candidate until LaFollette in 1924. I also tend to doubt that polling back then was not nearly scientific (or frequent) enough that one could definitively say a candidate led for "almost two months."

This statement needs a citation, or else it just needs to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.109.103.194 (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Election of 1992
The election of 1992 election. First, prior to the Democratic Convention, Clinton was running 3rd in the polls. It is important to note that it was at this point that Gore accepted the nomination as vice-president. Anyone who followed Gore's career found this move unusual, unless Gore was intending to use it as a platform to make himself a leading candate for 1996. Ross Perot decided to drop out of the presidental race on the night Clinton gave his acceptance speech. Perot's intention was probably to steal some of Clinton's lime light, instead much of the support that was behind Perot went to Clinton, propeling him into first place. During the campaign, Bush was hampered by health and personal problems, including the death of his mother; these contributed to his lackluster performance. Bush's reluctance to make any moves in the foreign policy arena in the turbulant post cold war era also added to trouble. For fear of being accused that he did not care about domestic issues, Bush let issues in Bosnia, Somilia, and Turkey stew until after the election. Once he did address these issues, his popularity increased significantly. In short, Bush did not lead. Further, Clinton accused Bush of not addessing a 'recession.' Later, during his administration, when Clinton would announce that we have had X months of economic growth, if X months were counted back it was well before Clinton was elected - to a time when Clinton was stating that it was the "worst economy since Herbert Hoover." However, this again reinforces Bush's lack of leadership.

"Clinton meanwhile, would become the first Democratic President since FDR to serve two full terms in the White House."--What? Um, Reagan served two full terms. -Beeswax07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.149.15.59 (talk) 01:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

he said DEMOCRATIC President to serve two full terms. Reagan was not a Democrat.Tallicfan20 (talk) 06:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Election of 1992 - detailed results?
Where is the best place to find detailed (state by state) results for the 1992 presidential election? The NYTimes article linked to is actually from 2008, not 1992. rhyre (talk) 11:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Ross Perot not running on Reform ticket
Someone needs to change the image accompanying this page. Ross Perot was not running on the Reform ticket, as the image suggests. He was an Independent. He didn't even form the Reform Party until 1995.


 * The image should certainly should be changed to fix this before it is readded. I do not have a problem with the use of red and blue, however, since before 2000 the notion of red states and blue states did not exist. Croctotheface 22:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Perot was not first in debates
In the "Campaigns" section it suggests that Ross Perot was "the first 3rd party candidate ever allowed to participate in the nationally televised presidential debates." This is false, considering that independent John Anderson had debated Ronald Reagan in 1980 but with no Jimmy Carter, who had refused to appear in a three-man debate. So I edited it to say this: "...the first 3rd party candidate ever allowed to participate in the nationally televised presidential debates with both major party candidates" and added in parentheses: "(Independent John Anderson debated Republican Ronald Reagan in 1980 but without Democrat Jimmy Carter, who had refused to appear in a three-man debate.)"

Gephardt Majority Leader, not Minority
This refers to Dick Gephardt as being the Democrats' House Minority Leader in 1992 in the section about the Democrats' nomination process, but from 1954-94 the Democrats solidly controlled the House of Representatives for four straight decades with a favorable majority. So the year 1992 was one of the fourty years during which the Dems had the bonus in the House so this means that Dick Gephardt was the House MAJORITY Leader instead and I edited the page so that it would refer to him as the majority leader. Even Wikipedia in its list of the majority leaders of the House lists Gephardt as one of them with his tenure listed as "1989?-1995."

Electoral picture peculiarity
Why is the graphic depiction of electoral votes skewed? Rarely nowadays does one see democratic votes colored red and and republican votes blue. --maru (talk) Contribs 20:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the colors should be flipped around.. --Drew

I agree, as well. The colors should be inverted. --Mike
 * It is how the original is colored, for the record, though that doesn't mean we couldn't come up with a new image and credit the atlas for the original. I'm not certain at what point red became the color for the Republicans; I remember being VERY confused in the 2000 elections because I thought blue had always been the Republican color (as in blue chip and blue blood) and that one of the channels was using a reversed color scheme. To this day when I hear the phrase "red state" I have to stop and think it through to remember which side is being referenced. Lawikitejana 22:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think there is an article on WP about this phenomenon. I believe blue used to be the incumbant party and red the opposition. In 2000, with the whole flordia debocle, red was cemented in people's minds as republican and blue as democratic. Someone should go through and standardize the maps, because I was confused the same way in looking at elections past. Prnd3825 18:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

NAFTA
I just

Items not mentioned
I'd have to look for sources on these two points, but:
 * (1) We don't seem to mention specifically that Perot used infomercials, not just the traditional one-minute ads. I remember this as being distinctive and being commented upon quite a lot in contemporary and retrospective sources.
 * (2) In less important news, it would be worth mentioning that there actually was a Saturday Night Live sketch early on indicating that it was thought Bush was the presumptive winner. It included actors playing Lloyd Bentsen, Richard Gephardt, and other candidates for the Democratic nomination &mdash; Bill Clinton NOT among them &mdash; and labeled the search for a Democratic nominee as "1992: The Race to Avoid Being the Candidate Who Loses to Bush." All the candidates were shown explaining why they didn't want the party's nomination. Lawikitejana 22:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Update: Here's the transcript for the sketch:
 * Campaign '92: The Race To Avoid Being The Guy Who Loses To Bush Lawikitejana 22:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Nick37 were is the picture?

Map Please
Can someone put in a map please? All the rest of the election years have them, and it is very confusing not to have one in there. (Cardsplayer4life 15:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC))
 * Nevermind, I put a new one in. (Cardsplayer4life 01:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC))

No electoral votes for Perot?
The chart states that Perot got no electoral votes. This is strange because I and other people that I know remember differently. Maine has 4 electoral votes, but you can split these electoral votes (2 and 2). I remember Perot getting 2 of Maine's 4 electoral votes. I can remember everybody talking about it. Can somebody double check this, because I'm almost certain the info in the chart (plus the source where this info came from) is incorrect. EPM 02:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I did a little extra checking, and this source states that the Maine electoral split can be 1 vote for each of the two Congressional districts and 2 statewide (equalling 4 for the state). However, I distinctly remember Perot winning one of the two Congressional districts. Have I gone crazy?! EPM 03:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't remember any electoral votes for Perot. I did some googling and couldn't find a reference to it either. (Cardsplayer4life 04:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC))
 * Sorry, you are incorrect. Perot received 0 electoral votes.
 * I am from Maine and Perot, sadly received 0 electoral votes. 169.244.143.119 05:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Billy-jack.jpg
Image:Billy-jack.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ross Perot
Seeing as the Perot-Stockdale ticket received 'no' electoral votes. Is it correct to have them at the top of the article? GoodDay (talk) 23:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes it is correct, although I'd prefer a better image, the ticket received 18.9% of the vote and participated in the national debates.-- S    TX   04:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Some persons - A new name 2008 and The Magnificent Clean-keeper have recently removed Perot from the top. These removals were not discussed in talk, and I have restored Perot to the infobox after the most recent removal by The Magnificent Clean-keeper. Penthamontar (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This is actually discussed right now at Talk:United States presidential election, 1996. Maybe we should keep it together and place any comments there.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

SVG versions of the electoral college maps


I would like to replace the electoral college map with a vector version. The one I made for this year can be seen here. It does away with the redundant and inconsistent state names, which in my opinion just add clutter. This allows the EC numbers to be larger, thus more easily viewable from in smaller preview sizes. I have changed the colors to match the colors used in this series of maps, though I'm open to suggestions on that front. (Due to a bug in the caching of SVG previews, the 2004 map on that page is currently in the colors I initially had, though I have no idea how long that will be the case.) The legend also looks different.

Now, the most obvious change is that my maps have thus far not included the EC/popular vote pie charts. This is mostly because I can't figure out an accurate way to make them in Inkscape.

I had my map change on this page reverted, which honestly I was sort of expecting. It's an obvious change, and I'm happy to discuss it. I didn't quite know where to get timely discussion on this topic, so instead I decided to be bold. Anyway, no harm done. I look forward to hearing people's thoughts on the two maps, what might improve the SVG version, and the key features necessary to make moving to a vector version a painless and beneficial process. -Nkocharh (talk) 07:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Would it be possible you replace all of the Presidential race pages with these maps? It is really confusing to look at the older elections with inverted colors. I know that red/blue were once switched, but since today we are ingrained with red=republican blue=Democrat, the use of the old maps does nothing but confuse us, when trying to look and analyze older elections. The svg. maps look much cooler too, and better to look at. However, I DO hope you can get the pie charts, as it also helps with analysis, in terms of comparing electoral vote distribution in older elections than newer, do to change of allocation with the addition of new states and electoral districts like DC.Tallicfan20 (talk) 03:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Exit Poll results, and where can I find a link to them?
I would like to ask where can I find a link to those exit poll results? Also, you have the demographics up, but why its the question, which was asked "who would you vote for without Perot" because the results to that question are very important to analyze this election. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tallicfan20 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Jerry Brown picture
Why does everybody else get a photo, but Brown's is a cartoon? 74.224.116.24 (talk) 03:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Seconded. The "official portrait" of Jerry Brown is a joke.  How about this one instead or at least until someone can find a better photo during the 1992 election.  --Ichabod (talk) 02:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:RobertPatrickCasey.jpg
The image Image:RobertPatrickCasey.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --22:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Election results
Are the election results given (370 votes for Clinton) correct? This graphics http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,588311,00.html (from the principal German news website www.spiegel.de) puts Georgia and Colorado to Bush and even gives percentages for Bush's "victories".--Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Update: Sorry, the link doesn't direct directly to the graphics. You have to click "Frühere Wahlen" (top right) and then "1992" (bottom center) to see it.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Why Ralph Nader should be included in presidential elections
I feel Ralph Nader should be added to United States presidential elections, 2000, 2004 and 2008 because he came in third place behind the losing nominee and he is considerably popular around the United States and he is always considered by me as a great politician and would make a great President of the United States. He is also anti-war, which some people like me would vote for. He may be considered a third-party nominee but he never participates in presidential debates of course. Darren Monaghan 17:30, 13 February, 1992. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.220.242 (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why are you bringing this up here? You should be mentioning this at the 2000, 2004, 2008 US prez election articles discussion pages. GoodDay (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Popular Vote
As can be seen here, here, here, and here, there seems to be some disagreement on the 1992 presidential election's popular vote totals. In fact, in the current article, the infobox contradicts the "detailed results" box on the subject of the popular votes for Bush. As confirmed by this US Election Atlas source on which the "detailed results" box is based, Bush did in fact receive 39,104,550 votes, as opposed to the current infobox's total of 39,104,500. Clinton's and Perot's infobox totals correspond currently with this source - but Bush's infobox total does not. The infobox also states that Bush received 37.7% of the vote, while the "detailed results" box states he received 37.4% - (the source actually says .45 - should this be rounded up to 5?). I will therefore now alter the infobox total to match with the "detailed results" box total. I should point out that I was very confused at first by this psephos page, to which a link is listed in the article's External links section, which has its own, differing set of popular vote totals. Penthamontar (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd say go ahead assuming your source is reliable enough to give the most accurate figure.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's the source already used in the article. The previous numbers for Bush in the infobox were supported by no source known to me. Penthamontar (talk) 02:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Margin Of Victory
Does anyone think that for close states, there should be a more than 5% but less than 10% margin of victory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Airview95 (talk • contribs) 04:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)