I thought you thought Perot cost Bush the win? That’s the prevailing wisdom around here. Some democrats claim George Wallace cost HHH in 1968 which I find hilarious.
Some exit polls showed that Perot voters broke evenly on their second choice, that would mean of course a Clinton win by the same margin. I think Bush would have gotten more Perot votes and gained several states making it a closer election but would he have won? I doubt it, he was not popular. He would have needed too high a proportion of the Perot vote in some states, like Gore’s Tennessee where Clinton won with 47% and Perot got 10%.
If the October surprise of Caspar Weinberger didn’t happen though, I heard polls were close before that.
The conservative Goode doesn’t compare to the ideologically muddled Perot though, he won’t take any votes from Obama (maybe a few dixecrat whackos, statistically insignificant).
Voting for him isn’t the same thing as voting “for Obama” though, mathematically speaking voting for any third party candidate who can’t win (at the end it was clear he would come in third but Perot in 92 had the potential to win, Goode doesn’t) has the same effect as not voting at all. So if I couldn’t bring myself to vote for Romney I’d probably just write in Calvin Coolidge rather than vote for Goode whom I don’t particularly care for.
I want Osama gone, risk of another RINO disaster notwithstanding. I’ll worry about the a-hole who might want to burn down my house after I get rid of the a-hole who is currently not only trying to burn down my house but make sure I can’t get out first.
I doubt Goode will get many votes, the Constitution party barley gets any. He is by far the most well known and qualified candidate that party has ever had but he is still a little known figure nationally. He is most likely to be a factor in his own state which is a a must win for the fingerless glove (Mitt). Bob Barr got less than 1% in Georgia in 2008 though.
His and the Constitution parties support though was more than the Obama margin in Indiana and NC. And Ron Paul’s 2% in Montana (as the nominee of the state’s rouge Constitution party) drove McCain under 50% there. The Nader vote exceeded McCain’s margin in Missouri but Obama still would have been shy of 50%. Nader of course prevented Gore from winning in 2000.
If it’s a very very close race like in 2000 Goode voters might be the difference for Obama but it’s not likely to be THAT close.
I may have said Perot kept Bush, Sr. from a second term in the past, but looking at it now and how things broke down and the dynamics I cited, I don’t really see how he could’ve overcome them in a two-man race. I believe only Lee Atwater could’ve rescued Bush, he would’ve eviscerated both Perot & Clinton (the rape stuff would’ve been front and center, and given when that would’ve been aired, Atwater might’ve tried to take out Clinton in the primary season, which would’ve left the Dems with Tsongas (and iffy health, essentially Dukakis II) or Jerry Brown (too nutty, too serious and unable to connect with middle America)).
It’s sad that we don’t have anyone of Atwater’s talent in the GOP today, at least no one we’ve heard of. Can you imagine what Atwater could’ve done with Zero ? We need these fearless, go for the jugular types. The GOP is so sadly whipped and gutless today. The media/Democrats scream “racist”, and the GOP goes and cowers in the corner. Sickening. No wonder we end up with $hit like Slick Willard.
But, as for me, unless the party dumps the piece of merde, I won’t support either evil over Goode.