Bill Schneider's Take

By Bill Schneider/CNN

WASHINGTON (Sept. 17) -- In 1992, Ross Perot was in the debates. In 1996, he's out. Why then and not now?

Right now, three-quarters of the voters say there is no chance whatsoever they would vote for Perot.

But when Perot got back into the race in early October 1992, just about the same number -- 70 percent -- said there was no chance they would vote for him.

Perot had been doing a lot better earlier in the 1992 campaign. In fact, for a few weeks in the late spring, Perot was running first, ahead of both George Bush and Bill Clinton.

So the difference is this: in 1992, Perot had been a candidate with a realistic chance to win.

So Perot was included in the debates, and look what happened. In the opinion of voters, Perot won the first debate in St. Louis hands down. Bill Clinton took the second debate, the one in Richmond, Va., where ordinary voters asked the questions. Perot came back to edge out Clinton and Bush in the third and final debate in East Lansing, Mich.

The result? Perot's favorability ratings soared. He went from two-thirds unfavorable before he got back in the race to 56 percent favorable after the debates. For Perot, the 1992 debates were the equivalent of a convention. They gave him a big bounce.

In the end, Perot got 19 percent of the vote, better than any independent or third-party candidate had done in 80 years. But he did not carry a single state and he came in second in only two states.

He's doing a lot worse than 19 percent now. Why is he doing so badly? There are two reasons.

One is his own image. If the 1992 campaign debates gave him a bounce up, he bounced right back down as a result of the catastrophic NAFTA debate with Vice President Al Gore in November 1993. By almost a 2-1 margin, the public said Gore won that debate.

Ever since the NAFTA debate, most Americans have held a negative opinion of Perot.

Right now, the polls show Perot getting only 6 percent of the vote. As it happens, that's exactly what Perot was getting in September 1992.

But then, 6 percent was not bad for a candidate who wasn't running. But 6 percent is a terrible showing now for a candidate who is running.

The second difference is the mood of the country. In 1992, Americans were angry and desperate for change. This year, that anger has greatly subsided and with it, the Perot vote.

This analysis originally appeared on CNN's "Inside Politics."

Copyright © 1997 AllPolitics All Rights Reserved
Terms under which this information is provided to you