I've always felt that way, DM. An incumbent President, who wins a war, is supposed to be re-elected. Perot hurt George Sr. more than anything else in '92, including the lousy economy at the time. That Frank Perdue looking jerk
.
The war was old news by fall '92 and with the fall of the Soviet Union, 1992 was the first election since probably 1936 when foreign affairs played no role in the election discourse (and this would continue up to 2000).
I don't disagree at all, Ronnie. Daddy Warbucks was up against a plethora of adversity in November of '92, from the lousy economy to being the first ever candidate openly mocked for being an out of touch, cranky old white guy. But I stand by my assertion that of all his obstacles, Perot probably took the most votes away.
If Perot didn't throw his extra small Stetson in the ring, would Clinton have won anyway? Probably, but it would have been very,
very close.
