[j_k_l]

Perot is not the reason why Bubba was elected. It was "read my lying lips" and his SCOTUS picks that cost him the election.

The Republicans took their conservative base for granted and it cost them dearly. If they have not learned from history, they will repeat this mistake and bring about similar results and there will be another Clinton being sworn in.

[rhombus]

Perot is not the reason why Bubba was elected. It was "read my lying lips" and his SCOTUS picks that cost him the election. The Republicans took their conservative base for granted and it cost them dearly. If they have not learned from history, they will repeat this mistake and bring about similar results and there will be another Clinton being sworn in.

Uh huh, sure.

[kabar]

In 1992, Bubba received 43%, Bush 37.5%, and Perot 19%. Clinton won decisively in the electoral vote, 370-178. Bush had a poorly managed campaign (Mary Maitlan) and failed to refute Clinton's dire portrayal of the economy. In fact, we had emerged from the recession.

Perot had a major impact on the election, including setting the agenda and making Bush the odd man out in the debates. Both Clinton and Perot were running against Bush, Bush lost states like Montana, Nevada, Maine, and NH by less than 10,000 votes and Perot took over 20% in all these states.

Bush lost narrowly in some larger states, e.g., Georgia (13,000 votes with Perot winning over 300,000 votes), Pennsylvania ( 48,000 votes with Perot winning over 900,000 votes), and Ohio (90,000 votes with Perot winning over 1,000,000 votes.) If Perot had not run, Clinton would probably have lost. Although Perot many have attracted many new voters, one could make a reasonable case that more Perot voters were Reps than Dems.

[vrwinger]

If Perot was not in the race were would those conservative votes have gone? Perot got nearly 19% of the of the vote in 1992... The Donks cry that Nader cost them the 2000 election and he got only 3% of the vote...