[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

George HW Bush was responsible for Perot. He and his minions ran a terrible campaign, and Bush 41 didn't take an interest in his own re-election until it was too late.

While a popular argument, this doesn't really stand close scrutiny. If Perot hadn't been in the race, given the way the "coming back home" vote split between the Ds and the Rs in 1996, it is pretty likely that Bush I would have won reelection in 1992, despite his failings.

[OldDeckHand]

'it is pretty likely that Bush I would have won reelection in 1992"

I have read a number of academic studies by political scientists over the years, and all the ones that I can remember reached that very conclusion - absent Perot, it's likely Bush gets reelected, although it would have been very close.

'96 is a slightly different case. Clinton probably prevails, but it would have been a much closer election, and certainly not the electoral blow-out it was.

[TomGuy]

While a popular argument, this doesn't really stand close scrutiny.

It does more than you may remember.

Shortly (2 weeks) after his loss, GHWB gave an interview, wherein the interviewer asked him why he didn't really campaign much until just before the election.

GHWB replied that he was the incumbent and thought he would win anyway -- until just before the election when his poll numbers were dreadful.