Replies

>>>"The Republicans who voted for Perot, or who refused to vote in 1992 and 1996, and thus helped to throw the election to the Sinkmeister, did so largely for one reason: George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole were not conservative enough. "
>>>Are there any statistics to support this assertion? Or is this just your opinion? I know a number of folks who fall into this category who honestly thought perot was the best candidate. You are also discounting the "independent voters" who probably would have voted for republicans but chose perot instead.

Isn't this too cute by half?

Yes, the people who voted for Perot no doubt thought he was the best candidate. Why?

Oh, because of taxes, NAFTA, and so on . . . because Perot was pitching a line that was more conservative on those issues.

Meaning that George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole were viewed as not offering positions that were as attuned to conservatives' as Perot. I guess another way to say that is that they weren't "conservative enough"?

Same with Nader and Gore on the liberal scale.

The fact remains that voting third party is nothing but a spoiler mission set upon by those who are somehow disgruntled with the candidate of the major political party they usually otherwise align with (Independents or whatever).

Surely very few Perot or Nader voters could have thought they actually had a chance of winning. No, they thought they would "send a message," "teach a lesson," "make them pay"---which, although quite sincere and seemingly thoughtful at the time, turns out to sound awfully like a high school clique war.

Does it matter to the result visited upon the nation WHY people voted for Perot or Nader? Do you dispute that a failure to vote for the Republican candidate directly facilitates the election of the Rat candidate, and vice versa?