[whereasandsoforth]

But lets say it again and again....President Bush would not have been defeated in 1992 if Ross Perot had not been there to manipulate the election. There would never have been a President Clinton. Why do journalist continually fail to mention this? It is a large factor in history.

[Cosmo]

Probably because this " Perot cost Bush the election" is a dubious fact at best, and anyone who cites it as gospel sounds as if they've been reading talking points instead of studying the issue in detail.

[FairWitness]

But lets say it again and again....President Bush would not have been defeated in 1992 if Ross Perot had not been there to manipulate the election.

Perot's effect, IMHO, was not limited to the number of votes cast for him, but also consisted of his constant criticism of President Bush, and little or no criticism of Clinton.

[dead]

But lets say it again and again....President Bush would not have been defeated in 1992 if Ross Perot had not been there to manipulate the election. There would never have been a President Clinton. Why do journalist continually fail to mention this? It is a large factor in history.

Because Perot didn’t manipulate anything. He ran a legal campaign for office, and received a small but substantial portion of the vote. How is that “manipulation”?

Bush I lost because he broke his promises to conservatives, and the Clinton machine was particularly adept at talking a minor economic downturn into the next great depression.