[birbear]

Trump would be a perfect candidate for her who could afford a third party presidential run in return for "large favors" later from a President Hillary.

Hmm... Based on what I've seen of some of the repub candidates, I'd be likely to vote for a Trump third party. (esp. if the Repub choice was a McCain or a Guiliani.)

And I disagree with your assessment of 1992. Bush lost the race hands down. He would have lost it without Perot. Perot gave a reason for more voters to come to the polls in the first place, had he dropped out (and stayed out), a lot of voters wouldn't have come to the polls.

George H. W. Bush lost my vote during the debates. He was tired, and didn't really want a second term.

[RandDisciple]

I do agree G.H. Bush was a very lame candidate. However, Clinton in the 1992 race was tarred with scandal even then, and viewed by many as not "presidential material". He won with only 43% of the popular vote.

It is hard for me to believe that Perot getting 19% of the popular vote while running on a "conservative", reduce the deficit platform, did not cost Bush the race. Bush may not have deserved to win based on his poor candidacy and position changes, but Perot taking voters who were predominantly white males gave him no shot to beat even the hapless Clinton.

I also think Perot's true intentions to bring down Bush and the Republicans (if there was any doubt) showed later during the 1994-95 Contract With America fight. The Republican Congress put its neck out fighting for the bulk of Perot's platform against the Clinton's and the media. The Republicans begged Perot to speak out in favor of what were essentially his own positions, and he repeatedly refused and even subtly knocked the Republicans actions. I think his behavior during this time (and his running again in 1996), took away all doubts of Perot's intentions of wanting to elect Bill Clinton.