If it wasn’t “moral values” that pushed Bush to victory, what was it? Duke’s Jerry Hough, a political scientist, points to Perot voters as a likely suspect:

Thorough analysis of the election will have to wait for final data, but one thing is certain: turnout rose sharply, and this helped the president, not Senator Kerry. The most likely explanation is that the alienated supporters of Ross Perot returned to the polls.

Many engaged in wishful thinking when they assumed that an increase in turnout would occur only among more liberal and moderate young voters. It is time to take the large turnout of 1992 seriously. In 1984, 92.6 million cast a valid ballot for president, 91.6 million in 1988, 104.4 million in 1992, 96.3 million in 1996 and 105.4 million in 2000. The population increased by 16 million people between 1992 and 2000.

The key fact about 1992 is that Ross Perot received 19.7 million votes. He won some 21 to 22 percent of the votes of white men, many of whom obviously had been alienated non-voters. Many were attracted to Perot’s nationalist message, especially his criticism of NAFTA and the Iraq War. President George H.W. Bush’s failure to remove Saddam Hussein seemed a sign of American weakness or cowardice in the face of allied pressure.

To an extent never appreciated, President George W. Bush has focused on the Perot voters. Immediately after the Sept. 11 attack, he adopted Perot’s official slogan, “United We Stand,” for his own response to Sept. 11. Then, of course, he reversed his father’s policy toward Iraq, despite his father’s public warnings through aides on the dangers of that measure. This must have been highly attractive to Perot-type voters.

Are these the “rural, many blue collar, non-college educated and union voters” who Stanley Greenberg claims turned against Kerry at the end of the campaign because of cultural and personality issues?