Posted on 04/12/2022 11:39:09 AM PDT by TakebackGOP
I know people like to bash the Bush Family, but GHWB was better than Bill Clinton. Perot's candidacy accomplished nothing, because the Republican Establishment didn't change. After Clinton was elected, the GOP supported NAFTA. They didn't even change after Trump won the Presidency. 9/11 may not have happened had Republican presidents been in there instead of Clinton. We also would have reformed the GOP earlier, because it took 8 years of GWB for the right to support conservative challengers against RINOs. I have heard that Perot was a good man.
You should put your political genius to use - get hired as a campaign advisor - some of them get paid big bucks for being wrong all the time.
I don’t disagree with the general thirds analysis.
It does not explain how a third party candidate suddenly became “available” to vote for.
Where are these perot candidates in every election.
perot was “allowed” in by the CPD to disrupt Republican probability of winning re-election.
Here is another useful educational point: Incumbents usually win.
In fact, that is the dominant fact of politics. You need a disruption of some kind to prevent that reality. That is why senators almost never lose their seats.
Presidential races are absolutely despised by our institutional elite who consistently want Democrats over Republicans. Perot’s main arguments were Republican arguments. You don’t see Bernie Sanders busting up the Democrats even though he probably ran along with other socialist radicals. But the elite do not give a debate stage to people who are going to break the Left voting block.
Clinton won with less than 50%. He won with an unusually low voting percentage. That happened because the elite wanted that.
In 1990, the Fed raised rates to 8.5% helping to damage the economy as the election approached.
Perot voters definitely helped elected Bill Clinton and CPD has never allowed a third party candidate onto the stage in October since then.
Perot was leading after the first 2 debates but he didn't want the job, and became correctly convinced that throwing the election would give it to Clinton.
Perot initially wanted to trust GHWB, but after Christic's Sheehan, who was probably half a spook too, convinced him Poppy was the leader of spook ops in Central America and elsewhere, Perot took his complaint to Judge Webster at the FBLie, and of course the Judge buried it on the lawn with "x" marks the spot for the "Ninjas" lofl.
So the 3rd Debate was Perot's "Ninjas on my lawn" craziness amped up to 11. And the little rat-faced bastard was absolutely right, by then he had siphoned off Poppy's win margin, as his donkey support left Perot and 'came home' to Bubba.
Perot should have won and been made to eat the daily brick of deep state shit that is the Presidency for anyone who is not a Marxist or senile.
It does. There’s 3rd party candidates all the time. The only thing really different about Perot is had enough cash to throw around to actually break the fog and get a somewhat serious vote count.
The CPD was just dealing with reality. Perot was popular enough they knew the debates would be thought of as a joke (they are a joke, but that’s for another day) if they didn’t include him.
Incumbents have certain advantages from being in power. Of course the two largest sources of incumbents in America are the House and State Legislatures. And they’re protected by gerrymandering. When you throw them out and only pay attention to offices that don’t have rigged voting bases incumbent advantage shrinks, still over 50% but not nearly as insane.
Clinton won with less than 50% because a strong 3rd party candidate syphoned a lot of the mushy middle. Historically sitting VPs don’t win. The middle doesn’t like allies of incumbents when the incumbent isn’t running. It’s why the party of the sitting president usually loses seats in midterms. There’s a reason Bush was the only the 2nd sitting VP to win the office in the ticket era. And both only went 1 term. Very popular outbound presidents let the VP run on “4 more years” and 4 years later the voters said “you ain’t him”.
Nobody would want me as a campaign manager. I’d tell them whether or not they were going to win, that there was little they could do about it and move on.
I had relatives who voted for Perot, being convinced that he was a hard charging patriot who would make a good president. I pointed out that the Perot family was big into democrat politics and his son was sponsoring events, like barbecues and such to raise funds and votes for Clinton and Planned Parenthood. No matter. Anyway, I believe that Ross Perot did indeed throw the election when he seem very close to winning. He may have been a patriotic Texan Independent but actually not up to the type of life he would have as President of the US. I saw him as a good man but unsuitable for the politics of the presidential office.
He did do a lot of good... set the stage for the 1994 GOP takeover of the House... and also showed would not work if you wanted to play outsider and win the Presidency.
Trump learned those lessons and that contributed to his win in 2016.
I think you are ignoring the reality that Perot was a conservative.
He was a Texas business entrepreneur. He thought Bush to be overly cooperative with the political establishment. That is a proto Trump candidate.
he did not evenly split the vote. Perot voters would have voted Republican but decided to try for a third party.
CPD is a massive control. The debates are watched by 50-100 million people. It was a huge factor.
But was he really? Like somebody else up thread said his family had ties to the dems. Sure he talked about balancing the budget, but that was the hot talking point that election. Everybody talked about it. Of course it’s not like Bush was terribly conservative either.
He didn’t evenly split the vote. The question is who would the mushy middle that voted for him voted for without him? The numbers and history tell me that they would have broken heavily for the not incumbent. And another big chunk probably would have just not voted.
I believe in well established historical trends. And the well established historical trend is that Bush was gonna lose. The sun rose in the east and the VP who rode coattails and then proved to not be him lost. That’s how things work.
Debates are generally bad for whoever is leading. That’s why candidates with strong leads try to avoid them. Since Clinton was leading the whole way if being on the debate floor helped Perot at all (hard for me to believe, he sucked at the debates, but it could happen) he pulled from Clinton. Again, well established historical trend.
Alright guys, just for fun I decided to look up some of the history. Because there was a multi-month period where Perot was out we do actually have the ability to guess what would have happened if he didn’t re-enter. And here it is: Bush would have gotten his butt kicked:
https://www.pollingreport.com/hibbitts1202.htm
I will summarize the meat of it:
In June Perot 39%, Bush 31%, Clinton 25%
Perot pulls out during the convention, polls immediately after Clinton 56% Bush 34%, of course that’s right after the convention, there’s always a bounce there
Get to August they don’t say Clinton’s numbers but Bush is at 37%
September Clinton 58% Bush 37%
Perot re-enters the race Oct 1, Oct 11th polls Clinton 48%, Bush 35%, Perot 8%
10 days later Clinton 44% Bush 34% Perot 19%
Election day Clinton 43% Bush 37.5% Perot 19%
So it’s pretty clear, Perot was drawing the “no Bush” voters. Even with him out Bush couldn’t get out of the 30s. And when he came back Clinton’s numbers went through the floor.
Alright it’s been real, thanks for mostly staying polite.
You’re basing your argument on fake news push polls now?
I had the same thought. It is as if this person has not lived in the world for the past 30 years.
Bush cost Bush his re-election.
Polls that matched the results. Yes. They’re the facts we have. Sorry if you find them inconvenient.
It’s not inconvenient at all - you can think whatever you want.
Do you think I care what irrational people choose to believe? I don’t.
As soon as they say something irrational, I see I’m wasting my time and move on - like with you.
Yep. Also, “Read my lips; no new taxes.”
hurt GWHB’s campaign.
I have said nothing irrational. And your need to throw insults tells all. If you have contrary facts bring them. If you don’t, which you won’t, we know the truth.
You’re wrong. Admit, don’t. Don’t matter to me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.