Perot 39% GHWB 31% Clinton 25%
This statement from Wiki:
"In June, Perot led the national public opinion polls with support from 39% of the voters (versus 31% for Bush and 25% for Clinton).[4] Perot severely damaged his credibility by dropping out of the presidential contest in July and remaining out of the race for several weeks before re-entering. He compounded this damage by eventually claiming, without evidence, that his withdrawal was due to Republican operatives attempting to disrupt his daughter's wedding.[5]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992
Perot led in the polls for weeks until he dropped out. Had he been temperamentally suited for the pressures of the campaign, and had he followed through with a tough campaign and a good VP pick, he likely would have won. The right candidate could have won as an independent by successfully raising issues and gaining support as Perot did.
And Perot was raising basically the same issues as the Tea Party and Donald Trump.
For those who don't know this history, or have forgotten, maybe it's worth a post to recall that Perot was winning by a good margin until he bombed out, and only regained about half his support (19%) after reentering the race.
That was my first election. I vote for Perot. I had read his book and really believed what he was saying. I still think he was right and, to this day, I think America would be a better country if he had won.
“Perot 39% GHWB 31% Clinton 25%”
Yeah, but how did that translate into electoral college votes?
Many Freepers do not care if a Trump run puts Obama back in in 2012 as long as they can stick it to anyone who didn’t meet their pure conservative standards (which I gather is nobody in the current GOP or anywhere else that would satisfy them for that matter.)
They have GOP-DS like the libs have BDS or PDS.
I have a couple of good liberal friends who are hoping that Trump runs.
Not so they can vote for him...
...but because they know he will divide the GOP and give Obummer a solid chance of being re-elected.
Shadow of the past....spectre of the future?
If some one would just come shoot me...
Excellent post!
he just mucked up the race for GHWBush.
Perot's predictions, however, have somewhat come true
- NAFTA giant suckin sound
- Lobbyists still have too much influence.
- Reduced Standard of living for our kids.
I think his message would have an an audience today. Sarah comes close...
That poll must have been right before Perot quit the race claiming that the Democrat party had “reenergized” itself under Clinton. 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, IMHO.
This seems to me to be “Exhibit A” evidence that demonstrates that to many, voting is an exercise in pure emotion. Whether it was for a great sounding Perot, or for the first Black blank slate, the process is the same.
This also demonstrates why American polling is all over the map. Basically, Americans have become very weak-minded and make their decisions based upon the latest TV commercial or who talked to them last before the election.
No core values, no direction of spirit, just raw emotional appeal, that’s what seals the deal for the American “Independent” voter.
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.
.... late poll results just in....
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.
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.
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.
There is still a very basic point that it seems some prefer to avoid: Perot raised issues in 1992 that could have won the presidency for the right candidate.
Those issues were: the growing federal deficit and national debt, the loss of jobs to one-sided trade deals (the proposed NAFTA trade agreement was part of the campaign) and the influence of lobbyist on our government’s policies and the revolving door between government employment and working for lobbyists.
The Tea Party has been raising the deficit and debt issue for well over a year now, and Trump is raising the one-sided trade deal issue.
Those are winning issues now as they were in 1992 if well presented by the right candidate. And someone might still decide to talk about the influence of lobbyists and the revolving door.
Damn Cubans.