Posted on 06/19/2016 9:39:18 AM PDT by ErikJohnsky
Since 1992, Republicans have been smarting their loss by claiming that Ross Perot stole enough votes to elect Bill Clinton.
Even as much as the loyal opposition seeks to demystify the winner's victory, the Perot-elected-Clinton lie has only served to force the GOP to adopt pro-immigrant pro-big-gov narratives.
Perot was more liberal than Slick Willie himself. http://www.ontheissues.org/Ross_Perot.htm He was pro-abortion, pro-homo, and for tax hikes on fossil fuel, the driver of American jobs. Bush I's job approvals in 1992 were as low than Jimmy Carter's in 1980
http://spectator.org/63682_bushioisie-wrong-ross-perot-didnt-cost-ghw-bush-white-house-1992/ http://www.gallup.com/poll/116677/presidential-approval-ratings-gallup-historical-statistics-trends.aspx
Of course Bush was 1000x better than Surrender Monkey Dhimmi, but the fact is that perception is reality. If Bush had been case as losing "truly fair and square" in 1992, who the heck woulda nominated the cucks Jeb and George in 1994, for anything? Or 2000, none the less?
The Bush family has depressed conservative turnout for 24 years and I am sick of it. Bush lost in 1992 because real conservatives stayed home in 1992, and have not been voting since. Dubya, Mr. Amnesty, Neocon, etc. barely won in '04. The final result was in the margin of error, were it a poll; his winning was pure luck. He did not emulate Reagan, whose principles and values beat Mondale in 98% of the states in America.
Those who fail to understand that a presidential election campaign is a dynamic process tend to compose semi-literate vanity posts. Unreadable.
But then Perot got really weird - he dropped out of the race, declaring that he had saved the Democrat Party from destruction...only to reenter a few weeks later. What a nut case!
I voted for Bush in 1992. 20% of America voted for Perot. My belief is that these 20% believed that Perot was more conservative that Bush, and pro-American.
If Perot had never run for President, most of that 20% would have voted for Bush as the lesser of two evils. Despite Bush being a GOPe, we would not be in the mess we are today if he had won.
If Saddam had a brain he would have made nice with us-at least lip service like Kadafy. Same with the idiot in Syria. Staying in power is cheaper than spreading the disease.
He would have had we not broken our pledge to him not to do anything if he invaded Kuwait.
Perot did not steal the election. Look at the polling in 1992: Bush led when Perot was in the race. He hardly moved when Perot dropped out but Clinton rose a lot.
Perot disproportionately took votes from Clinton.
If Ronald Reagan had not thrown a VP life vest to Bush in ‘80, the Bush buffoons would have deservedly disappeared from public life and we would all have been better off.
Bush 1, who tarnished Reagan’s legacy, was little more than an usher for Clinton while his son’s gross incompetence, ushered in Obama.
If you need a scapegoat, the Bushes own it!!!
The Bush family rise was also the rise of the uniparty.
No Bush(s) no uniparty.
The uniparty has to be defeated in 2016.
Perot helped elect Clinton. No doubt about it.
‘Ole Ross did manage to get his own private International airport out of the deal. Something daddy Bush had shot down.
EDS was the early pioneer in using electronic processing for Medicare, Medicaid and other government programs going back to the mid 1960's. One of the few companies I dealt with at the time that delivered on their promises. I believe Perot sold EDS in the mid 80's so I guess he did not have a financial windfall from Slick Willie.
I believe it was Perot’s fellow Texan Lyndon Johnson that got fed ‘small business’ grants for Perot to develop government benefits processing, and then he got government contracts because he had the processing system. Pretty sweet deal.
“20% of America voted for Perot. My belief is that these 20% believed that Perot was more conservative that Bush,”
your belief does not stand up to the empirical data. Even if more Perot voters had voted Bush than Clinton, a ratio of 2:1 woulda been needed, A MINIMUM, assuming all Perot voters would’ve voted.
When ur job approval is under 40%, like Carter, far lower than 0Bama and Carter in 2012 and 1980, respectively, YOU LOSE.
June 4-8----- Perot 39%, Clinton 27%, Bush 31%
11/92--------- Perot 19%, Clinton 43%, Bush 37%
Typo in #34. Clinton was at 25% in the June 4-8 poll.
June 4-8-—— Perot 39%, Clinton 25%, Bush 31%
11/92-——— Perot 19%, Clinton 43%, Bush 37%
His VP pick, and that made-up threat to his daughter(when it looked like he had an actual chance to win in a 3-way race), showed he was not a serious candidate, he just wanted to muck up the works.
Politics(on both sides of the aisle)have become nothing but a cesspool ever since, enriching themselves while morally and financially putting America into the toilet. They are ALL playing us for suckers.
Bush was 8% to 15% behind Clinton the entire time.
Clearly pro-abortion, but personally not particularly pro-homosexual. He put his money where his mouth was when his church was fighting over women's ordination and abortion (leading to a split) but he was on board with leaving the denomination a couple of decades later when the issue was homosexual marriage and ordination. I don't have access to the numbers, but the rumor was that he ponied up his share of the $7.8 million exit fee.
Blackmail, then he found out the pictures were fake was the story I heard at the time.
Yes! Let’s hope that Yeb’s crash-and-burn means the Bush scam is over.
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.