[don-o]

Citing Perot's loss as evidence that 3rd parties have no chance is, at best, misleading.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda...Good grief.

[jjsheridan5]

Woulda, coulda, shoulda...Good grief.

It is not a case of "woulda, coulda, shoulda". It is a case of failing to draw the correct conclusions from the evidence you cite. As evidence, the Perot candidacy was actually stronger evidence that a 3rd party candidate has a chance of success, whereas you conclude, erroneously, that it is evidence that a 3rd party candidate has no chance. Good grief, indeed.

Your other evidence is similarly flawed. Anderson was never a serious candidate, and was running against a very popular governor who was starting to gain extreme popularity nationally. Nader was never more than an over-hyped fringe candidate. The bottom line is that the only evidence we really have of a serious 3rd party challenge, in modern times, is the Perot candidacy, and that candidacy shows convincingly that a 3rd party candidacy is realistic.