POLL GIVES PEROT A CLEAR LEAD

New York Times ^ | June 11, 1992 | New York Times

[Will88]

"In the telephone poll of 815 registered voters nationwide, conducted June 4 to 8, Mr. Perot was supported by 39 percent, Mr. Bush by 31 percent, and Mr. Clinton by 25 percent. The poll had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus four percentage points."

[RED SOUTH]

I am sure Perot's 39% lead would have led to an electoral victory over Bush and Clinton. Perot destroyed his campaign when he quit. Clinton took the lead at that point. Perot got back in the race but the damage was done as the narrative that Perot was a little off in the head stuck....he went on to get 19% of the vote.

[Just mythoughts]

Palin is the spoiler this time. It’s the purists and the fundamentalists that will cost us this election, not Donald Trump.

Care to expound upon your 'slur' purists? I remember some of the moderate high minded former freepers, using that derogatory term looking down their nose at the 'red necks' they depended upon to win their elections.

[Dixie Yooper]

I still think he was right and, to this day, I think America would be a better country if he had won.

Perot had the potential to go into any business situation and turn it around. If the United States could have been run like a dictatorship at that time (unlike now) he would have been able to do something. Congress would have shut him down on both sides of the aisle and the Supreme Court would have done the same. Perot loved to go after Bush, but avoided making any negative comment about Clinton. After he announced that Bush had hit squads out to get him and his family, it wall all over except for helping Clinton win. People like you helped him push Clinton over the top.

[ex-snook]

Perot gave us Clinton but Bush gave us Perot. Perot’s job sucking sound is getting louder and louder but still ignored by the two major parties. The only sucking sound they hear is when the ask for campaign contributions from Wall Street while 15,000,000 Americans look for work.

[dangus]

.... late poll results just in....

[eyedigress]

The entire, “they’ve targeting my daughters thing” is what whacked him. He could have won that race.

[Cicero]

Perot was uncomfortably similar to Donald Trump. He spoke well, he appealed to fiscal sanity, he pointed out the dangers of big government. He appeared at a time when people were unhappy with the status quo.

But he was morally unsound. Although he was a businessman, he made most of his money off of big government contracts. In other words, he was part of the big government-corporate complex, even though he pretended to criticize it.

He could not be trusted on the social or moral issues. He didn’t understand or credit the difference between moral right and wrong. Therefore he lacked basic principles.

Just about all of that is true also of Donald Trump. He has his political/business connections, including condemnations by the government of property he is interested in. He has recently briefly declared that he is pro-life and Christian, but those are empty words, with nothing to back them up, and much in the past to contradict them. He simply cannot be trusted.

What you say about the polls is true. The people in 1992 were longing for a savior to come along and rescue them from the two corrupt major parties. The big-spending Democrats and Mr. “Read my lips” Bush the promise breaker.

But Perot was not the man, as they started to realize. And neither is Trump now. It will take someone with sound, basic principles. Someone with religious beliefs that they will not go back on. Someone with a firm foundation, as well as the ability to talk and persuade. Perot and Trump are good at talking, but there is nothing beneath to anchor it.

Although many Freepers are unwilling to see it, there is one person who can lead, talk, and persuade, enough to give her a majority against the two major parties, if necessary. And she has demonstrated repeatedly that, unlike Perot or Trump, she really means what she says. She fires up every crowd that she appears in front of, she inspires loyal friends and followers, and she has a long proven record, including having once before beaten BOTH major parties in Alaska.

[Obadiah]

Exactly right. The “hit squad” comment was the galvanizing comment that made people finally wake up and see what most were saying, that Perot hated Bush and was out to sabatoge his effort.

Bottom line? Perot single-handedly gave us 8 years of Bill Clinton.

[mmercier]

I only confess to past misdeed after swinging for a while on strings attached to my toes and a burlap sack of poop tied to my head.

[richardtavor]

That is a pretty large box that you are trying to put us all in. I suggest you narrow the size of your boxes, or put yourself into your own box.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

What’s funny is that if Perot hadn’t done that last minute drop out/rejoin/claim the GOP was trying to disrupt his daughter’s wedding nonsense, he may well have won it. As it is, I think Perot was more of a trojan horse designed to split the non-leftist vote.

[tisket]

He only got back into the the race when Bush started to catch up to Clinton, with half the support he had before he quit; just enough to be sure Bush lost, which was all he really wanted

Exactly.

And Perot was raising basically the same issues as the Tea Party and Donald Trump.

Trump's only talking a good line. His actions are all far left. Everyone needs to do their own research.

[NavyCanDo]

FLASHBACK APRIL 2007 (IOWA POLL)

http://news-releases.uiowa.edu/2007/april/040307poll-data.pdf

DEMS
Clinton 25.5
Edwards 23.2
Obama 16.3

REPS
Guliani 17.5
McCain 14.4
Romney 9.6

There is a lesson to learn in early polling data. It will always be wrong.

[RC one]

Republicans should have run a better campaign and, read my lips, Bush should have kept his promise. Furthermore, I thought blaming other people for your own shortcomings was a liberal trait. Look at the candidates the Republicans have put forth if you want to know why they lost those elections. Bob Dole versus Bill Clinton? It’s like the Republicans wanted to lose. I voted for Dole btw but come on. McCain? I voted for that loser too and his little cheerleader. Look what they got us. Obama.

[Will88]

But Perot was not the man, as they started to realize. And neither is Trump now. It will take someone with sound, basic principles.,p> I don't think you'll ever see that great all round person in the political arena. All politicians have flaws, probably more so than the general population because the nature of the political game will repulse most people with really strong basic principals.

I'm waiting to see who declares and what issues they emphasize.

[RC one]

slur? I have been called much worse for daring to even listen to Trump. How about you get over it?

[Will88]

There is a lesson to learn in early polling data. It will always be wrong.

The poll cited from 1992 was not an early poll. It was June of 1992 after the two major party candidates had been chosen in the primaries. It's the equivalent of June 2012.

You're citing polls (April of 2007) more than a year earlier in the election cycle than the NYT poll with Perot. Bush and Clinton.

[mmercier]

You are an interesting individual contributor.

[Hugin]

Palin is the spoiler this time.

How so? She isn't even a candidate yet, and may or may not decide to run. If she does, it will be as a Republican in the primaries, not a 3rd party spoiler. If she wins the nomination it will be because more Republicans wanted her than anyone else. That's hardly a spoiler. If it happens then it's up to the moderates to get behind the nominee the way they always tell conservatives to support RINO nominees.

BTW, I'm not a Trump supporter, but he is talking about running for the Republican nomintaion, not running as a 3rd party, which is a huge difference from Perot.

[Rick_Michael]

weird answer. Trump is a joke. The fact he argued with Rosie Odonnell like a child makes him unworthy.