Table IV -- National Presidential Voting (Voting News Service 1996)
Year Republican Democrat Third
1952 33.9m 27.3m
1956 35.6 26.0
1960 34.1 34.2
1964 27.2 43.8
1968 31.8 31.3 9.9
1972 41.2 29.2
1976 39.2 40.8
1980 43.9 35.5 5.7
1984 54.3 37.5
1988 48.9 41.8
1992 39.1 44.9 19.7
1996 37.9 45.6 7.9
[2000] [50] [47]
Table V -- Synopsis of State Voting and State Vote Deficit (Voting News Service)
State Candidate Actual Vote Projected Vote Vote Deficit
CA CL 4812317 4900000 --
BU 3338942 5500000 1700000
PE 2144856
CO CL 625402 650000 --
BU 555408 750000 200000
PE 363000
CN CL 681081 700000 --
BU 574738 800000 225000
PE 348028
DE CL 125997 125000 --
BU 102436 140000 38000
PE 59061
GA CL 1002433 975000 --
BU 985628 1100000 115000
PE 306489
IA CL 583937 600000 16000
BU 503338 625000 122000
PE 251040
KE CL 661059 625000 --
BU 617419 725000 108000
PE 203587
LA CL 815305 800000 --
BU 729880 800000 70000
PE 210604
ME CL 263420 250000 --
BU 206504 300000 105000
PE 206820
MI CL 1854603 1800000 --
BU 1585251 1900000 315000
PE 819931
NV CL 185401 175000 --
BU 171378 200000 29000
PE 129029
NH CL 207264 200000 --
BU 199623 230000 30000
PE 120029
NJ CL 1361988 1350000 --
BU 1303686 1600000 300000
PE 504152
OH CL 1964842 1900000 --
BU 1876445 2500000 615000
PE 1024319
VE CL 125803 125000 --
BU 85512 130000 45000
PE 61510
WI CL 1035942 1000000 --
BU 926245 1100000 150000
PE 542610
US CL 45m 41m --
BU 39m 49m 10m
PE 20m
In each of these states, the vote deficit of the Bush campaign was the result of votes
lost to the Perot candidacy. Also in each state, the Clinton vote was close to what the
predicted total should have been. Had there been no Perot effort, Clinton's totals would
have approximated what they were anyway, but the Bush tallies would have been much
larger, and he would have carried each of these states -- and won the election. A statistical
linear projection of the votes in these states produced very little difference (see Appendix
A).
III. Vote Erosion
What appears so clear in the 1996 popular vote, however, is almost sublimated in the
electoral count. Up until the final polls, the popular vote was being projected as a double
digit lead by Clinton. Only Zogby/Reuters measure called it very close (NYT 11/1/96).
Whether that contributed to the results as self-fulfilling, or conditioning or programming,
an examination of state elections demonstrates not just how close the tallies were, but that
in state after state Perot took enough votes away from Dole (as he had from Bush) to
allow Clinton to carry them. With Clinton capturing 379 electors in 1996, and 370 in
1992, in more states than would have been necessary to reverse the outcome of the
election, Perot stole the election for Clinton.
As the networks began to report the returns on November 5th, the first states in were
declared for Clinton. The spin on the little formerly Yankee twins of Vermont and New
Hampshire was that they, like the rest of the northeast, have become more Democratic as
New York and Massachusetts have spilled over into them. Florida was put in the Clinton
column an hour before the polls closed there. It went to Clinton, the reports said, because
of the large senior vote and its fear of GOP 'slashing' of Medicare. At least, such reporting
remains uniform in its bias and fabrication. But when the tallies are examined, to whatever
extent such factors played a role, the vote in Florida was rather close -- close enough, that
Perot made all the difference. Much the same can be said of those next reported, Indiana
where Dole narrowly won, and even more for Kentucky which he narrowly lost. Had
Perot not been in the contest, Dole would have carried Florida and Kentucky along with
Indiana. Of course, this was all reported amidst Tom Brokaw's acclamation of what a
great night it was. Other network commentators, including Peter Jennings were no less
enthused about the results.
And so it went. Even Arizona, which 'always' votes Republican (except for 1992 and
1996), this year registered 46% for Clinton, 45% for Dole, and 8% for Perot. It wouldn't
have taken many of those Perotista voters to put the state in Dole's column. But there
were ten other states where the situation was the same:
Table VI -- Twenty-five Year State Republican Vote Percentages (Voters News Service)
|-------1996--------| |------GOP %------------| 72-88 AvrD+P
Electors State Clinton Dole Perot 92 88 84 80 76 72 Avr. - P
8 Alabama 46 45 8 39 61 67 62 59 67 63 55 53
25 Florida 48 42 9 41 61 65 56 47 72 60 51 51
8 Kentucky 46 45 9 41 56 60 50 54 65 57 48 54
11 Missouri 48 41 10 34 52 60 52 48 62 55 45 51
4 Nevada 44 43 9 35 61 67 55 52 64 60 51 52
5 New Mexico 48 44 6 38 53 60 56 51 63 57 51 50
21 Ohio 47 41 11 39 55 59 52 50 61 55 44 55
7 Oregon 47 40 10 33 48 55 50 50 55 52 42 49
23 Pennsylvania 49 40 10 36 51 54 50 49 60 53 43 50
11 Tennessee 48 46 6 43 58 58 49 57 69 58 52 52
11 Wisconsin 47 40 10 37 43 55 49 49 55 50 40 50
_____
134
These eleven states account for 134 electors. In each, the Clinton margin was small and
the total he received fell below half. It would have taken little erosion of Perot voters to
Dole to have given him most of these states. Without the Perot candidacy, Dole would
probably have won each of these, and the election, with 293 electoral votes to 243 for
Clinton.
IV. Divide and Conquer
The same analysis can be applied here as to Bush's 1992 defeat. But, in fact, 1996
proved perhaps even closer than 1992 was. Clinton 'won' those states, and election, by
about 1.5 million votes while Perot collected 2.5 million in them, but in each, a clear
majority voted against re-electing Clinton. Adding to that total of eleven the 19 states
carried by Dole, considerably more than half the states (30 in all) voted to reject Clinton.
That was true, as well, of course, at the national level where the vote against him was
52%. But for the second consecutive election, the old trick of 'divide and conquer' had
worked.
It is true that in some of these eleven states, Dole would have had to have gotten
nearly all of the Perot vote in order to have won, and some would contend that as
unlikely. But most of these are states where GOP voting patterns are strong, and the Perot
voters could have voted for Clinton but did not. At the very least, without the Perot
option, some might not have voted, but if Perot had not been on the ballot, it is no rocket
science to see them going for Dole. In nearly every state, the Republican and Democrat
votes over the past many elections can be traced for their patterns. For 1992 and 1996, the
Republican patterns demonstrate definite patterns of growth that are interrupted and
diminished by the approximate size of the Perot vote. Further evidence of the Perot effect
can be seen by looking at the proportion of the vote for the three 'top' contenders in other
states, and comparing it with recent elections. In each of these, which range across the
political spectrum from Republican to 'swing' to Democrat, the 1992 Democrat vote does
not diverge greatly from the average vote from 1972 to 1988. But, for Republicans, their
share of the vote is not only significantly lower than average in both 1992 and 1996, but
their vote level in both years is rather close to the average of the previous five elections if
the Perot vote in each year is subtracted from the average, lending credence to the
contention that Perot was the major difference.
Table VII -- Twenty-five Year State Republican Vote Percentages (Voters News Service)
|-------1996------| 92 88 84 80 76 72 72-88 AVR
D C P AVR LESS
Perot
Alas. 51 33 11 40 60 69 67 62 63 64 53
Utah 54 33 10 46 67 75 74 65 72 71 61
Mont 44 41 14 35 53 61 58 54 60 57 43
Idaho 52 34 13 43 63 73 68 62 71 67 54
Virginia 47 45 7 45 60 63 54 51 69 59 52
Texas 49 44 7 41 57 56 64 48 67 58 51
N.C. 49 44 7 50 58 62 50 46 71 57 50
Indiana 47 42 10 43 60 62 57 54 66 60 50
S.C. 48 44 6 48 62 62 64 50 72 60 54
Kansas 54 36 9 39 56 67 59 54 70 61 52
Michigan 39 52 9 37 54 60 54 53 57 55 46
Mass. 28 62 9 29 46 51 42 42 45 45 36
W.Va. 37 51 11 35 48 55 46 42 64 51 40
