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.
Perot totally took his votes from Bush.
“No you don’t. Which I explained in the rest of the post and you couldn’t be bother to read it.”
You used circular logic in your post! We don’t know because we don’t know!
I know!
There was little difference between the Bushes and the Clintons.
GHW Bush plotted the illegal alien inundation that is today threatening the very existence of the USA.
It was continued by his adopted son, Slick Willy and his son W and the Kenyanesian Usurper, which the Bushes did nothing to stop.
It’s been THIRTY YEARS! Give it a rest already.
Read the whole thing. You’re almost there, only a couple more sentences, I believe in you.
Nope.
My vote for him was my red pill.
Perot was a flawed candidate, and he might have opened the door for Clinton. He definitely showed that the “political marketplace” was not meeting a demand from the voters. All it took was another 20+ years. Perot showed that the game was rigged by the uniparty.
It was impressive that Perot was able to get on the ballot in every state.
Unfortunately he won no states and got no electoral votes, and the Clinton plurality win translated to an ev landslide. His best state was Maine with 30% of the vote.
You couldn’t be more wrong.
None of the 19% that Perot got came out of Clinton’s share.
Clinton got 42% - only a hair more than Mondale’s humiliating 40% in 1984. Even DuKakis got more than Clinton when he got thrashed by Bush in 1988 - 45%.
Without Perot in the race, there is no doubt that Clinton’s pathetic 43% would have given Bush a repeat of his 1988 landslide of 53%.
Says who? And who defines some candidate’s “share”? Got any proof the folks who voted for Perot would have even voted at all if Perot hadn’t run?
I agree. Perot didn’t “take” votes from anyone. He got the votes people gave him.
And Bush Sr. gave Perot a lot of votes when Bush reneged on his pledge not to raise taxes.
Bush would have had to win 90% of Perot's voters.
Do the math - it’s not hard: 36 + 19 = 55.
Bush inherited Reagan’s franchise in 1988, winning 55% of the vote - and he would have inherited it in 1992 as well - the ONLY difference was Perot.
Meanwhile, Clinton won a pathetic 43% of the vote - that kind of number gets you thrashed like Mondale or DuKakis - UNLESS it’s a three way race.
This is not rocket science, and you are just about the only person I know who would even try to dispute it.
You haven’t bothered to answer any of my questions. All you’re doing is ass-u-me-ing Bush “owned” votes. He didn’t. NOBODY owns votes until their cast. PROVE Perot voters would have voted for Bush. PROVE they would have voted AT ALL. Especially because you’re living entirely on percentages not vote count. It could easily be that nobody who voted for Perot would have voted in the election without Perot on the ballot, then Clinton gets over 50%.
You got one thing right. It ain’t rocket science. And the not rocket science says you ain’t proven nothing.
You are right, and I also can’t prove there will be sand on the beach next time I go to the NJ shore. But obviously there will be sand, right?
You sound like an idiot trying to dismiss something this obvious.
Oh and now you run to insults.
Big difference between sand and votes. Plenty of people opt out of voting. They don’t find the candidates exciting, or even acceptable, and don’t vote. One year here in Tucson we had a really bad slate for the mayoral election, and on that same ballot was a raise for the mayor. More people voted against the raise than the COMBINED total for the mayoral candidates.
There’s simply no data out there that says a significant percentage, much less 100% like you ass-u-me, of Perot’s voters would have voted for Bush. The simple truth is he was a lackluster president who couldn’t keep his campaign promises and his 92 campaign limped around the country like a whipped dog. He didn’t move the voters. That’s why he lost.
Oh please.
Ralphing into the lap of a Japanese Diplomat is nothing to be celebrated.
The CIA threatened Perot’s family and he dropped out of the race.
It really doesn’t bother me if you want to believe that.
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.