Now THIS is Interesting

I have no idea if Stefan is right in this assertion:

The weird thing - the really, really weird thing - about the 1992 presidential campaign was the tracking poll published in Newsweek shortly after the election.

Throughout the entire campaign, from February to November, Bush's support in the electorate did not drop below 30% nor exceed 40%. This was through Perot's lead in the polls, through his dropping out on the eve of the Democratic convention, through his reentry in September, and all the way to Election Day - 60 to 70 percent of the nation was going to vote against the incumbent.

There was no evidence from that tracking poll that Perot had anything at all to do with the result - in that the election was going to be a defeat for Bush regardles. Indeed, Bush's only hope was for Perot and Clinton to split the electorate so evenly that Bush's loyal 35-38% could squeak him through to victory.

Perot did, however, have everything to do with the legitimacy of the eventual winner.

This is a side note to your main thesis, but nevertheless something that has bugged me at a low level for 16 years. It seemed obvious to me that Perot was from the beginning out to prevent a Democratic landslide, not to take up any sort of arms against Bush. (His actions in 1996 could have no other strategy -- save serving his megalomania, something that could also explain his effort in 1992, of course.)

But it does cast an interesting light on the Clinton Presidency, and the Perot candidacy.

Taken from the comments to DeLong's post on why health care reform couldn't pass on Clinton's watch.

Sad stories, both, and in every possible way.