Déjà vu ‘92; Trump := Perot
_______________________________________________
PULEEEZE! Ross Perot wouldn’t make a decent pimple on Donald Trump’s ass.
_______________________________________________
PULEEEZE! Ross Perot wouldn’t make a decent pimple on Donald Trump’s ass.
I think that comparison is only true in the sense that the (R)epublicrats would once again incorrectly blame an electoral loss to the 'other guy'. That was a lie in 1992. The two Bush41 campaigns were entirely different and Bush literally threw the 2nd one. In 1988 Bush was a conservative candidate with a pair of stones, brutalizing the 'liberal' Dukakis constantly. In 1992 he acted as an emasculated (R)hino and never even uttered the word 'liberal'. He had somehow been re-educated ( even after enormous approval ratings from the Gulf War! and a gift-horse Clinton handing him multiple sexual scandals ). Furthermore, it is offensive for (R)epublicrats to advance the notion that our votes are theirs to begin with.
Perot drew from all voting blocs, even liberals who likely couldn't pull the switch for an alleged southern blue-dog (D)ummycrat. I voted for Bush41 but if I knew then what I know now it would have been for Perot. I guess it was out of loyalty to Reagan.
If Trump can actually nail down the nomination the stupid (R)epublicrats better realize the catbird seat they occupy. Trump self-financing the main ticket is an extremely rare and positive development because it would entirely free up the party resources ( $200 million maybe ) to swamp the (D)ummies in Congressional and local elections. If they have any brains and coordinate properly they could create a landslide and mandate resembling 1972 and 1984. In both those years the electorate had their pitchforks out as well, to ensure a McGovern or a Mondale doesn't bring radicalism to main street.
Trump needs to seriously figure out how to pick off New York or California. Both would be the landslide scenario but either one locks it up. And this is easily do-able by going after blue-collar and union members. They used to run 52-48 but have moved to 60-40 or more in recent years depending on economics and other circumstances so a swing of 10% minimum puts it squarely in play. A *real* campaign in either or both states would traumatize the (D)ummies and deplete their resources everywhere else. He is financially able to compete in these states whereas the recent Rhino efforts were to leave them alone resulting in 60-40 ratios. That said, MI, PA, CT, OH, and more are definitely do-able and would devastate the (D)efensive bankroll.
Anyone that doubts this as far-fetched apparently has no memory of 1972 or 1984. Seeing the looks on the faces of the leftist scum on TV on election night watching the table being run for a 3rd time in my life would be wonderful.