A poll a month before the 1992 Democratic convention showed...

Perot on 36, Bush on 31 & Clinton on 27.

Clinton was unknown, Bush was the steady hand, albeit one being pilloried increasingly by an appalling economy.

the '92 Democratic convention gave Clinton a MASSIVE bump, and from that point on he never surrendered the lead. Bush recouped some ground after the GOP equivalent but it wasn't enough. People wanted change - When Perot dropped out after Clinton took the lead, his voters didn't flock to Bush. They were fed up with the economic situation and waited to see what happened.

Bush's poll average from that point on was around 35%. His ceiling was low, and even those who weren't convinced by the inexperience, relatively unknown Bill Clinton weren't displaying great enthusiasm for a continuation of Bush economic policy. He ultimately ended up with 37%. Perot's re-entrance didn't make much of a difference to Bush, he just syphoned votes from Clinton.

Voters wanted change, one way or another. And with the early Democratic convention, the action got into full gear, had people paying full attention a lot earlier in 1992 than is the case in 2008.

Next question.

It was very ugly. Just like '88.

I know it was against Dukakas but he did the same to Clinton...

...they tried to hammer home the notion that Clinton was a draft-dodger, and wheeled out Old Man Dole to do their bidding.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE5D9143AF93AA3575AC0A964958260

Note the standard tacky Republican gimmicks:

"Democratic and Clinton campaign officials, meanwhile, accused Republicans of seeking to disrupt several Clinton appearances over the past few days with a single-engine plane overhead towing a banner with the message, "No Draft Dodger for President." Encouraged by Local Officials"

:thumbsup: :hi:

His stated reason for dropping out was that the convention showed that "the Democratic Party has revitalized itself."

That was the day before Clinton's acceptance speech, which became a play for the suddenly candidate-less Perot voters.

It was a pretty atypical situation.

(Perot re-entered the race later.)

Yes, this year has much in common with 1992, but the polling and convention bounce from 1992 are sui generis.

...that, for the most part, people want change. And they will ultimately opt for a candidate who can offer them that. I think Obama will make a play for the considerable number of undecided voters this time around and snare rather a lot of them, while syphoning some who currently think that the 2000 'Maverick' McCain is their man.

and stated the reason as being a threat by GHWBs supporters to "disrupt" his daughters upcoming wedding.

It was really dramatic. Perot dropped and every delegate suddenly knew Clinton would win. Last to first in five minutes.

I was sitting on a hotel bed watching Perot with my jaw on the floor. Bush was going to lose!

thank you Pat Buchanan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iO5_1ps5CAc&feature=related

and here I thought the sky was falling and shit.