Posted on 01/06/2020 6:16:30 AM PST by ChicagoConservative27
“The ‘92 election was decided by Ross Perot. In a 2-man race, Bush beats Clinton easily.”
Bush lost because he failed to persuade enough voters to vote for him in enough states to give him an electoral victory. Same as Hillary Clinton in 2016. It is the candidates responsibility to develop a winning message and to focus his/her resources to attain victory. When Perot announced he was running, it was up to Bush and his advisors to develop and execute a strategy to thwart Perot.
Bush did himself major damage in four ways:
1) Violated his emphatic “no new taxes” pledge
2) Allowed James Carville to define the terms of the campaign - “Its the economy stupid”. Bush wanted to campaign as the victor the Desert Storm war. Clinton, on the excellent advise of Carville, pounded the economic message during the economic slump prior to election day. Bush was unable to provide a compelling response. His desperation to uncover dirt on Clinton suggests he was devoid of ideas. I still remember a question in one of the debates about the price of milk. Bush could not answer a simple question any middle class voter could answer. He appeared to be out of touch with the average voter. Perception is reality.
3) Bailout of the savings and loan industry, like his son’s bailout of Wall Street Banks in 2008, favored the wealthy at the expense of the taxpayer.
4) By the 1992 campaign it was clear Bush was not a Reagan conservative. He was a globalist elitist, who was failing to secure the boarder and pushing for one sided “free trade” agreements. Perot correctly saw the elimination of tariffs and quotas would resulted in the decimation of US manufacturing. Perot often spoke of the “great sucking sound” NAFTA, WTO, and other trade policies would create as American jobs went overseas. Bush had no answer to Perot except to say these agreements would be “good for the economy.” Bush was unable to explain to the factory worker how losing his job would be good.
Finally, Bush had zero charisma and looked like a patrician elitist when he spoke to the people. Clinton came across as folksy and fun loving.
Ross Perot won the election for Clinton. As a third party candidate, he siphoned off enough Republican/conservative votes to seal a victory for the progressive/Democrat.
Has Britain ever done anything positive for the USA?
Seems like they have been a big leach for most of history. When they weren’t trying to destroy us.
Yup. As far back as the one for G. Washington. Remember?
And thus the Clintons took over the Democratic Party and we’re in charge until Obama dethroned them in 2008 Obama not being a real political machine the Clintons still calling to power and then we’re firmly and finally defeated in 2016
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.