[Savage_Nation]

"Perot did not 'steal' any votes. None. Zero."
I NEVER said he did!!!!

"All votes are up for grabs; some candidates just don't do a very good job of earning them.

That percentage for Perot also includes a number of votes that would have gone uncast before they went to either the Republicans or the Democrats."

I don't thinks so. I would bet money that the average Perot voter would have been more likely to vote for a Republican.

"The simple fact was that Perot was more attractive to some people than Dole."

You forget 1992! The Election that put Klinton in. Klinton never got more than 50% in either 1992 or 1996.

"If you want to win elections, run better candidates, don't blame your parties piss poor performance on some other candidate. That strategy is for losers....doh! I forgot to whom I was speaking!!"

Listen JACkA$$!
To ignore Perot's influence on the 1992 election is simple stupidity and shows your ignorance.

Perot's campaign actually had an influence on a presidential election, the media would have you believe Nader did.

[Eagle Eye]

Thank you for your comments, you've pretty much proved every one of my points.

[Eagle Eye]

BTW, the low voter turn out only proves how weak the candidates were.

IMO, the Perot voters were actually excited about casting their votes while the rest of us were either holding our noses or voting against the other main candidate.

DOle may have lost teh electino but the real BIG TIME losers are those that still blame Perot for Dole's lackluster performance. Quite sad, really.