“I’ve been hoping for a Ross Perot type insurgency with a conservative at the head.”
That gave us Bill Clinton.
Yes, I often used that as a defense of the indefensible GOP action of offering up McCain for our consideration.
I am now convinced that it is irrelevant. If we had a two-party system it would be one thing, but I'm trying very hard to see the delineations between R and D.
Various circumstances kept Clinton in check. I couldn’t have known that when I voted for Perot. But, I was damned-sure not gonna vote for Bush again! Obama is far more dangerous than Clinton. Clinton, really, had no guiding ideology!
George H. W. Bush gave us bill clinton. Actually, all Ross Perot probably did was deprive clinton of a majority win.
Lots of studies have looked at the 1992 race to try and figure out what would have happened if Perot had not been in the race. Most Perot voters were more anti-Bush than anti-clinton and most would have stayed home if the Perot option weren't available. However, the majority of those Perot voters who would have gotten out and voted would have likely gone clinton rather than Bush.
No, George Bush did.
Had Perot been a true conservative and had he stayed in the race, he would have won. When he dropped out the first time, he was leading, and Clinton was in 3rd. When he came back, yes, he did cost Bush more than Clinton, and so he helped Clinton win. But the reason Perot was successful was that people wanted an alternative. It took them a while to figure out that Perot was a nut, but had he not been one, and had he stayed in, he would have had a good shot at a win.
A better shot than Mittens does, that's for sure. And if Mittens wins, do we really win? Or do we get eventual destruction, versus immediate destruction? If the left wants a civil war, better it be now than before another 20 years of indoctrination, when there are still a plurality of Americans left in the country.