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.
Yes, Bush probably wins without Perot around. That would have been better than the Clintons. Perot’s issues were right there, but it took all the way until 2016 for an outsider to crash the party.
Perot was deep state. All if his money was earned through government contracts and getting a monopoly on welfare payment processing.
AND he gave millions to politicians like Nixon to get his property north of Arlington TX approved for sale to create DFW airport.
Ross Perot's secretary was apparently a was comely and appealing and worked upstairs just outside of Ross Perot's office. My instructor enjoyed taking the daily switch printouts upstairs for Ross Perot to review and stopping to chat with the secretary. One day they were talking and the Switch technician/instructor nervously reached over and flipped a light switch a few of times.
All of a sudden Ross Perot ran out of his office shouting "we're having a brown out, we're having a brown out" as only Ross Perot could shout it. My technician/instructor incredulously looked at the secretary and she just said "that is the light switch for his office, you better get down to the switch." My technician/instructor friend hauled himself down the stairs and beat Ross Perot down to the switch room, to tell him that the apparent power hit hadn't been detected on the switch alarms.
All of our corporate and vender classes were in Plano and Richardson, Texas, so I have no reason to doubt the story and it sounds just like Ross Perot going off half cocked about everything he touched.
Good. Because it’s true. And you know it. Which is why you haven’t even attempted to provide 1 single fact to the contrary.
Had Bush Sr. been a Conservative and governed like one, Bubba the Rapist would never have left Arkansas. He handed him the Presidency on a silver platter, even with Pee Rot in the race.
Rarely have I seen a candidate more eager to lose than Bush Sr in 1992.
The Tea Party movement began in 2010.
“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.”
I agree on immigration but, I think he was better than Clinton.
You have shown any proof either that Perot didn’t take away from Bush.
Over Clinton and his scandals.
I voted for Perot back in 1992. My brother did as well.
I regretted my vote very quickly after that. My vote essentially went for Clinton. Nobody in State Politics ever killed as many people as that Crew did. I have been unable to live it down ever since.
I see the truth of ‘Elections have consequences.’
I have made lots of bad votes over time, but none such as that 1992 horror.
Perot wanted to balance the budget.
How was Clinton going to do that?
He was not. In fact his wife was charged with implementing universal health insurance. That played a huge role in the House flip of 94.
In January Clinton announced the era of big govt was over.
It’s also important to realize that CPD does not allow third parties to the left of the dem candidate. They allowed someone to the right of push to run. That’s obvious votes for bush.
What’s true? You didn’t prove anything - and the burden of proof is on you, not me.
What did the Perot and Clinton agendas have in common that would make you think they were competing for the same votes?
The answer is - nothing. Bush and Perot were competing for pro-business votes - lower tax lower regulation - like any Democrat, Clinton was kissing up to labor unions and special interests - and like any Democrat - he had those voter blocks all to himself.
And died in 2016.
The rate of decay increased exponentially 30 years ago.
Maybe. But I don’t think he’s to blame for Clinton winning. Bush was the definition of globalist, broke his promise on taxes and Clinton was a somewhat centrist, smooth talker.
Is it possible that folks were just sick of Bush Sr and Perot was their option instead of not voting?
Alright it’s time to explain the core mathematics of American politics to you guys. I warn you, if you pay attention and really UNDERSTAND what I’m going to explain to you American politics will become very boring to you.
So basically the American voting public is divided into roughly 3rds. The specific numbers vary from year to year, but they always stay in throwing distance of 33% of each. Roughly 1/3 of the voters align with the Republicans, 1/3 with the Democrats, and the final 3rd (which I first saw labeled the Mushy Middle) are the people that really decide elections, and they cycle like the tides. The Mushy Middle gradually get more and more tired of one side the longer they’re in power, which puts the other side in power, and then they get tired of them. This is why for most of the last 150 years or so we run this lather rinse repeat in our elections. R gets 2 terms, D gets 2 terms, R, D, R, D. Yeah we get the occassional break in pattern, like Bush getting the Rs a 3rd term, or Trump’s 1. But by and large this is the cycle.
So let’s look at the 92 election:
Bush 36%
Clinton 43%
Perot 19%
Now compare those to our standard divide: 33, 33, 33. That 33% is the only vote any D or R candidate can count on. If there’s a pool that is actually THEIR vote, that’s it.
So Bush’s 36% shows that he got a tiny chunk of the Mushy Middle (10% of the 3rd or 3% overall).
While Clinton got about 1/3 of the Mushy Middle, 10% of the overall vote, in addition to “his” 33%.
And the lion’s share of the Mushy Middle went to Perot.
Now sure these are broad generalizations, as always there’s cross over votes, some Rs vote D, some Ds vote R, blah blah. But they’re usually a small number and wash out. The bulk is what matters. And bulk of it is that Bush drew basically nothing from the Mushy Middle who actually decide elections. And thinking that without Perot he would have gotten ALL the Mushy Middle flies in the face of American electoral history. They get tired of the side in charge. Best case scenario for Bush is a 50 50 split of Perot’s 19% if Perot isn’t on the ballot. Actually probably it splits in 3rds, 1 third to each Bush and Clinton and the other 3rd not voting, so it looks like a 50 50 split but the total vote count would drop.
More than like without Perot the Mushy Middle split the way part of them already did. 3 to 1 for Clinton. It was the 3th time around for an R, he wasn’t gonna win. Especially with that pathetic campaign. Bush got all “his” votes. He lost cause he got basically none of the Mushy Middle. And that’s who decided elections.
Your 1/3 1/3 1/3 analysis works in a two way race: the R gets the pro business 1/3, the D gets the affirmative action 1/3, and they fight over the remaining 1/3. The stronger candidate wins.
That’s not what happens in a three way race like 1992, where the 3rd party candidate runs a pro business campaign to the right of the Republican.
What happened in 1992 is that Perot ran a pro business campaign - to the right of Bush - thereby taking half the pro-business Republican votes that Bush got in 1988.
Clinton got the dumb affirmative action 1/3 that always votes Democrat, plus a third of your “mushy middle”.
If I’m wrong about 1992 - let’s do an experiment - let’s have a three way race in 2024 between:
Any random brain-dead Democrat as the Democrat nominee.
President Trump as the MAGA Republican nominee.
Ron deSantis as the ultra MAGA third party nominee.
What do you think will happen? Obviously, the two MAGA candidates will split the pro business vote, and the Democrat will win with a plurality, just like Clinton did in 1992.
The 1/3 1/3 1/3 is REALITY. That’s how American politics are currently divided, and have been for a long time. And strength of candidate has very little to do with it. Every once in a while especially strong or weak candidates break the cycle, but the vast majority of American elections since the late 1800s have run on this cycle. Forget platforms and all that. It has so little to do with election results as to be completely pointless.
It IS what happened in ‘92. And ‘96. And 2000. And and and. Really American elections run on this cycle. I first read about all this in 2003. Of the 10 elections that have happened since then (the pattern also effects mid-terms) 2020 was the first election to break the cycle. And with GOP gains later this year we’ll be right back on cycle.
DeSantis isn’t 3rd party. He’s GOP. That would be basically Anderson in 1980. He’d be a non-factor, thought of as a sore loser. The cycle has the dem winning in ‘24 unless something crazy happens.
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.