Talk:1992 United States presidential election

Candidate Photograph Licensing.

I'll just state right out that I am incredibly bad at finding photos that manage to meet the criteria that Wikipedia or its Commons expect, and I've basically given up in that arena. For the time being, in those sections where I am unable to display such a photo for the candidate in the gallery, I am simply going to list their name(s) and the general data. If someone else could establish the galleries where I am currently unable, I would be grateful. --Myownworst (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Results by state

In the Results by state section maybe the congressional districts for Maine should be added (Since Maine splits there electoral votes by district). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prcc27 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Landslides

For the record: I did not change it to say "landslides." Somebody else did. I was content with just "wins," but always supported the fact that the election was preceded by three consecutive GOP landslides, but certain Wikipediers insisted they knew better and added sophomoric language, basically called me "arrogant," and stamped their cyber feet until I finally relented because arguing with a child is not worth it. But I'll stand by the "landslide" epithet as that is what was the case. Sorry if you do not have a degree in History. Forgive me please, for I do! Myownworst (talk) 00:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I also offered citations. Certain Wikipedia inquisitors never did that - just inserted their own opinions and evaluations of '80,'84, and especially '88. Myownworst (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on United States presidential election, 1992. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041103020223/http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/history/ch13.htm to http://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail.html?RaceID=36389
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041103020223/http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/history/ch13.htm to http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/map.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120825102042/http://www.mit.edu/~mi22295/elections.html#1992 to http://electionwall.org/1992.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120825102042/http://www.mit.edu/~mi22295/elections.html#1992 to http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/datagraph.php?year=1992&fips=0&f=1&off=0&elect=0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Utah Electoral Votes?

The electoral map for this article and also for the 1996 and 2000 articles have Utah with 6 electoral votes. Am I missing something or shouldn't it be 5? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:2:AA24:D991:7517:B480:D81D (talk) 07:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

According to Electoral College (United States) § Chronological table, Utah had five electoral votes in 1992 to 2008 and six since 2012. According to List of United States Representatives from Utah § Current members, Utah has 4 congressional seats and hence 6 electoral votes. YBG (talk) 07:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm removing, from the lede, the following:

"As of 2016, this is the last time Georgia and Montana voted for the Democratic candidate, and the last time the state of Florida backed the losing candidate, while being only the second time the state has done so since 1960. This is also the earliest presidential election from which all four Democratic and Republican presidential and vice-presidential candidates are still living."

1. For one, this has nothing to do with the 1992 presidential election, but, and especially because it is incorrect at best, and vandalism at worst. Georgia has voted Republican, prior to this one (1992), since 1980, and with the exception of this one, Georgia has voted Republica, including the most recent one (2016). As for Montana, this election (1992) was the first and last time it voted Democratic since 1938. As for Florida there's nothing special about it, at least from what it's supposed to be asserting, since it's been back and forth from one party to the other for a while, like many other states. The only bit that is correct is the last sentence.RupJana (talk) 08:54, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
2. Actually Montana did vote democrat in 1964 by a larger margin than even 1992. When they said "while being only the second time the state has done so since 1960" they are talking about Florida specifically being only the second time since 1960. It voted Nixon in 1960, and for the winning candidate ever since until 1992, justifying the second time. And for Georgia, it is true that it has never voted democrat ever since then, same with Montana. I get that this is not really a paragraph that is needed per say, but to say that this is wrong is not true. Everything in there was true, and it is easy to figure it out honestly. Although I do see why you would remove it in the long run as it is just trivia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.8.165.190 (talk) 04:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

   Now, it needs to be updated 173.54.44.85 (talk) 01:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on United States presidential election, 1992. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110126054313/http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/01/21/bush_gulf_war_reunion/index.html to http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/01/21/bush_gulf_war_reunion/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090823094350/http://www.tcf.org/list.asp?type=NC&pubid=1120 to http://www.tcf.org/list.asp?type=NC&pubid=1120
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081128173902/http://www.epi.org/briefingpapers/1993_bp_political.pdf to http://www.epi.org/briefingpapers/1993_bp_political.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051214030614/http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/histryotln/bridge.htm to http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/histryotln/bridge.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Nancy Lord home state

She currently lives in Nevada, but she ran for Mayor of Washington, D.C. in 1990. MB298 (talk) 04:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

George Bush Photo

Proposed Photo A

Current Photo B

A - It doesn't have a yellow-tinge to it not present in the full photo and it showcases more of him besides an up-close view of the face. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 16:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Total votes shown in table does not match the sum of the individual candidates

The Sum of the votes shown for Clinton, Bush, Perot, Marrou, and Others is 104,424,006. However, the total votes shown in the table is 104,423,923. A difference of 83 votes.

Not sure where the math error is located but though I would point out the discrepancy for the sake of accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6E1:79E0:F00D:725A:24C4:19B3 (talk) 14:47, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Reverting the image of Bill Clinton to the one from 1993?

In my opinion, the 1993 image of Bill Clinton is a better fit for the page, as it is one that is more easily recognisable (both for the subject and the time period), and the time discrepancy between the election and the image being taken is small enough that it makes sense to use the presidential portrait for this page. Penumbra01 (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Fourth president to lose reelection?

Gerald Ford was never elected president, nor was he elected Vice President either, so he can't be considered to have been "reelected." It should either say that Bush was one of four incumbent presidents to lose an election campaign, or that he was one of three presidents to lose a reelection campaign. 2607:FEA8:84A1:6300:253A:6E7F:185E:FE93 (talk) 17:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Nobody's bothered to respond to you, so I've made your change. 1.145.152.141 (talk) 01:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Los Angeles riots

The lead says "Furthermore, the 1992 Los Angeles riots loomed over the election, especially after the four officers were acquitted of all charges regarding the incident with Rodney King." This statement is unsourced, the Los Angeles riots are not mentioned again in the article, and the article on the riots does not mention an impact on the election. Addionally, the vague "loomed over" seems like an acknowledgement that they didn't actually affect the election, so why are they mentioned? 1.145.247.151 (talk) 04:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

No response, so I've removed it. 1.145.152.141 (talk) 01:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

What's up with the new Perot portrait?

It looks pretty low quality compared to the other two, and it looks like it was colorized by an AI or something? There's visible splotches of color changes on it and it looks pretty crusty Codename Jenny V (talk) 02:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

It gets changed every now and then, I just had to change it back. I offered for them to open up a discussion on the topic in the talk section as I had to do for Mondale in 1984, let's see if they take me up on my offer. Gelid Lagopus (talk) 15:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Perot Photograph

The photograph for Ross Perot must be changed. It feels completely out of place and feels like it was taken for a newspaper during a business event instead of being an actual photograph that Perot's company had put out. Plus, the current photograph and the photograph that i wish to put up for the infobox were taken in the same year and with not that much of a time difference between the two images. ~ HistorianL (talk) 00:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Portrait for President Clinton

The portrait for President Clinton on the infobox is currently Option 1, same as it is on the 1996 page. I made an edit changing Clinton's portrait here to Option 2, which clearly met resistance, because two people reverted it back without reason. To prevent an edit war, let's hold a vote here.

• 
  Option 1
• 
  Option 2

I prefer Option 2. We use the first on the 1996 page already. There isn't anything wrong with this, but since we have several official portraits of President Clinton taken in an official capacity, why not use different portraits for different elections? We do that for basically every other president on their infoboxes, including Jimmy Carter, a one-termer. It was also probably taken closer to the 1992 election. The portrait is dated 1999, but it's obvious it's from much earlier, because he is much younger, particularly his hair, which was snow white by 1999. Since his hair is still brown, it's much more likely that this was taken when he was president-elect or sometime in 1993. Anyways, I'd appreciate it if we got other editors to weigh in so that we can reach a consensus here instead of constant edit warring. ~ GI Brown 1970 (talk) 01:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree; I vote for '''Option 2''', which provides a much better photo for this article. Plus, it matches the crop of the others better. To top it off, it's also directly forward-facing, like the other 2, unlike Option 1, which is slightly to the left hand side. Mycranthebigman of Alaska ^_^ 16:01, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the change, Option 2 offers a difference in portraits whilst still being accurate for 1992. It’s a good portrait too, and fits well. Gelid Lagopus (talk) 13:36, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Strongly support Option 1. It is customary to include photos that were recently taken of a candidate in infoboxes, and the second proposed image was taken in 1999, seven years after the election, while the existing portrait was taken in 1994. Also, the proposed second option isn’t even an official portrait, while the current one is. — Politicsfan4 (talk) 17:18, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Disregard my previous point about the date of the photo (apparently it was probably not taken in 1999). Nevertheless, I still support option 1, since option 2 is not technically an official portrait. — Politicsfan4 (talk) 17:21, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I also support Option 1 as it gives off a more professional feel that the other portraits give off HistorianL (talk) 17:35, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I vote for number 2. Not only does it look nice, it makes sense to use a photo of Clinton from the time of the campaign over his official presidential portrait since he was not yet elected. Festive TCT (talk) 03:15, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I vote for number 1, as we have no conclusive proof that this photo was taken in or around the year 1992, besides how one deems the 2nd photo of Clinton to look younger than the other. The editor has not confirmed if they factored in issues such as lighting with the date of the photo. The presidential portrait also follows precedent, with Ronald Reagan in 1980, George W. Bush in 2000, Barack Obama in 2008, Donald Trump in 2016, and Joe Biden in 2020, all of whom use official portraits from the days preceding or succeeding their inauguration, despite other portraits published closer to their respective election days existing. Chahn200 (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Bill clinton 1987.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)