Who cares what they wanted. Perot took 19% after he bailed. Clinton couldn't even get a simple majority in two terms. Perot disaffected his base and much of his following when he bailed initially and still got 19%. It was unheard of; but, the guy had popular support. If it hadn't been for the dirty tricks, he'd have won. Plain and simple.
Do you have a more concise, logical point to make, or is "circus act" the best you can do? At least knitpick my spelling or something to show us how intelligent you are by comparison. I'll even give you a freabie <-- hint. Did you catch it, or do you need help?
LOL!
If he hadn't bailed in the first place he(Perot) might have won.(BTW, Perot basically said that he was bailing because clinton was leading).
Oh that's right, Perot bailing the first time in 92, was due to "Republican dirty tricks".
LOL!, again.
Oh Really?
Perot was promted on the LKL show as a presidential candidate when he was a political nobody. Perot later drops when he has a high level of support. Then Perot -- gee, golly gosh -- comes back in again when it has become almost impossible for him to win.
Bill Clinton then wins.
You don't think that's a circus -- I do.
You're a dupe.
Oh BTW, document the so-called dirty tricks, who did them and what named sources can prove who did them. Or did CNN not give you all those details.
What a dope you are.