"If there was no Perot on the ballot most of the people who voted for him would simply have not voted and Clinton would still have won."
We disagree, without the distraction of Perot, the Republicans could have presented a more cohesive message without having to fight on two sides.
In any case, I don't believe that 20% of the voters in this country go to the polls for a single issue, or once there, that they would decline to vote for President at all.
Here is what Don Feder wrote back in 1992, "After winning as a conservative in 1988, Bush extended an olive branch to his enemies and his middle finger to his erstwhile allies. He signed the quota bill, and all the racial con men were for him this year, weren't they? He initialed the Clean Air Act, and all the environmental wackos were in his corner, weren't they? He signed the Hate Crimes Bill and invited homosexual activists to the White House for the signing, and that crowd clambered aboard his reelection bandwagon, didn't they?
And what did he do for his core constituency from 1988? For evangelicals, he appointed John Frohmayer head of the National Endowment for the Arts and stuck with him through Mapplethorpe and "Piss Christ." His first Supreme Court appointment voted to uphold Roe v. Wade and declare a graduation invocation a violation of the First Amendment.
For fiscal conservatives, he raised taxes, rolled over for congressional spending, re-regulated and gave us the greatest bureaucratic expansion of all time."
Regarding conservative votes as an entitlement program got Bush Sr. defeated in 1992.