Long And Short Term Effects Of The 1992 Election

Long and Short-Term Effects of the 1992 Election on American Social, Political, and Economic Livelihoods

The 1992 election was a significant piece of American history. For the first time in decades a third party candidate was able to capture significant momentum towards capturing the electorate in the form of Ross Perot. Campaigning strategies unseen since Roosevelt by Democrat Bill Clinton re-captured the complex New Deal Coalition. Finally, the election was even coined “Year of the Woman” by many due to the massive uptick in women running for congress in a new feminist movement. The 1992 election was significant because it led to radical change within the electorate and promoted new directions for the United States politically. Throughout

The White House refused to admit there was a recession until late 1991, even though Bush had spoken privately for months about the downturn in the economy that had cost millions of Americans their jobs. He vetoed a bill that would have increased unemployment insurance benefits, claiming that new spending would add to the problem of a growing federal deficit. During a visit to a Florida supermarket, he expressed amazement at a barcode scanner, already a common sight at checkout counters. These actions made Bush appear to be out of touch with the lives of ordinary Americans and the grievous effects of the recession. They seemed to confirm his image as a wealthy elitist, even though people who knew him praised his graciousness and generosity.

Even though what Gold argues is factual and corresponds with Perot’s strong showing, the economy, and the fact that Perot was a successful businessman was overlooked. It is noticeable that during elections where the economy is slowing or declining voters tend to vote for the businessman. Multiple connections can be formed through different time periods, but this development can be easily compared to Hilary Clinton vs. Donald Trump in 2016, as many conservative democratic, blue-collar voters decided to vote for Trump. In both elections 2016, and 1992, the economy was in shambles or growing at a snail’s pace, and voters voted for the businessmen. This connection is essential because it proves the essential claim that the 1992 election would change the political landscape forever, that Americans desire ones in business when the economy is