Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Blue State Insurgent
Sorry to burst your RINO inspired bubble, but Perot took as many votes away from the Democrats in 92’ as he did from the Republicans. I know because I was one of them.

Flat out not true, your anecdotal experience notwithstanding. Perot took far more from Bush than from Clinton, enough to swing the difference. MSM have been trying to push your claim ever since, and I guess you buy into their lies.

Far more important was what he did to the dynamic of the race in April and May, not what percent he got in Nobember. When Perot was hot, he was neck and neck with Bush, and Clinton was far behind in third. He was attracting Republican voters who were pissed off at Bush. Then he got out, with an idiotic claim about his daughter's wedding. I believe he and Clinton made a deal. Whatever, he was a nut and he was working for the Dems, one way or another.

When he got out, those voters who would never ever have voted for a Dem had psychologically left the GOP and Bush. They gravitated to Clinton, especially after Perot told them the Dems were just fine with him. Clinton lied about being a socialist and a New Democrat, and that gave him just enough Reagan votes to defeat a liberal Republican.

Without Perot, Bush would have won the first post Reagan "hold your nose and vote for the Republican" election, probably by 53-47 or so. There would have been a substantial contingent that stayed home because of the "read my lips", but in the end, the vast majority would have held their nose and voted GOP. Instead, Perot served as their bridge to voting for a Dem. And that was enough to get him the election, at 43 percent.

Your understanding of what was going on with Perot is very superficial.

100 posted on 11/03/2009 10:58:07 AM PST by Defiant (The absence of bias appears to be bias to those who are biased.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies ]


To: Defiant
What proof do have to support the MSM myth that Perot took more votes from Bush then Clinton? And while your at it, go find that Perot/Clinton conspiracy to defeat Bush document.

At the time, I along with most of my friends were solid Democrats or political nonparticipants until Perot. But reform was and still is appealing.

The Republicans bashed him all over the place only to co-opt all his ideas 2 years later to take congress with their rip off ‘Contract with America’. The Republicans couldn't beat him but they still had to join him.

Perot is back. This time in a skirt. Palin gets my support not because she sounds like Reagan, but rather because she sounds like Perot. She brings in reform minded voters along with conservatives. That is the winning combination.

108 posted on 11/03/2009 11:38:35 AM PST by Blue State Insurgent (She is our Joan of Arc and we are her Guardian Captains.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson