Ross Perot donated to Trump’s re-election campaign before death: report

Fox News ^ | July 09 2019 | Bradford Betz

[knighthawk]

In his last documented political act, self-made billionaire and two-time presidential candidate Ross Perot wrote out two checks to President Trump’s re-election campaign before succumbing to his battle with leukemia at the age of 89, according to a report.

Perot, who ran for president as a third-party candidate in 1992 and 1996, is largely credited with providing a road map for Trump's presidential campaign.

Like Trump, Perot ran as a billionaire populist against the Republican establishment. His focus on the North American Free Trade Agreement – rather than the national debt – and his use of cable news for laying out his agenda were both familiar elements of Trump’s campaign.

[Democrats hate too much]

For decades I blamed Ross Perot (and Pat Buchanan) as the cause for the problems we have now (basically originating with Bill Clinton’s win and everything that came after, Obama winning included)... Now, after knowing what I know, I would say Bush Senior being picked as VP in 19080 was bigger and things I didn’t understand about what Perot and Buchanan were doing, I understand now.

[deport]

Popular vote
44,909,889 - Clinton
39,104,545 - Bush
19,743,821 - Perot

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_presidential_election

[Innovative]

NOT TRUE.

FALSE.

Please see:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/perot-trump-100-million/

[rxsid]

"After handing us Clinton, he owed us a hell of a lot more than that.

…

Yes Ross, you owed us big-time."

Not everyone agrees with that assessment.

"The Economy and ‘Read My Lips,’ Not Ross Perot, Cost President Bush His 1992 Re-Election
R.G. Ratcliffe | Dec 6, 2018

…

Bush was in trouble from the get-go. The collapse of the savings and loan industry had thrown the nation into a recession, and Bush had broken a 1988 promise against increasing taxes as part of a budget deal with Democrats. National polling in late 1991 showed Bush running neck-and-neck with a generic Democratic candidate to be named later. Eventually, Bill Clinton emerged with his campaign staff focusing on reminding themselves of one idea: “It’s the economy, stupid.”

…

Here’s the truth. Exit polls showed Perot drew votes almost evenly from Clinton and Bush. In the states where Perot did the best—Texas and Florida—Bush still won and took all the Electoral College votes. The truth has hardly mattered to what has become known in political circles as The Perot Myth. During the 2016 election, the political website Five Thirty Eight produced a video trying to dispel the Perot Myth.

The idea that Perot cost Bush the 1992 election is one of the most enduring myths of American politics..."

https://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/george-hw-bush-lose-1992-reelection-ross-perot/

[rxsid]

	1992	Group	Clinton	Bush	Perot
	All Voters	Pct.	43%	37%	19%
PARTY	Democrat	38	77	10	13
	Republican	35	10	73	17
	Independent	27	38	32	30
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY	Liberal	21	68	14	18
	Moderate	49	48	31	21
	Conservative	30	18	64	18

https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-1992

[rxsid]

"PEROT SEEN NOT AFFECTING VOTE OUTCOME
By E.J. Dionne Jr. | November 8, 1992

…The analysis, based on exit polls conducted by Voter Research & Surveys (VRS) for the major news organizations, indicated that in Perot's absence, only Ohio would have have shifted from the Clinton column to the Bush column. This would still have left Clinton with a healthy 349-to-189 majority in the electoral college.

And even in Ohio, the hypothetical Bush "margin" without Perot in the race was so small that given the normal margin of error in polls, the state still might have stuck with Clinton absent the Texas billionaire."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1992/11/08/perot-seen-not-affecting-vote-outcome/27500538-cee8-4f4f-8e7f-f3ee9f2325d1/?utm_term=.6790ed3f7675

[BOBWADE]

No new taxes was a stupid thing to say. If you’re a spineless Republican and too weak to push anything, don’t make promises you cannot keep.

[TomGuy]

IIRC, Perot dropped out and then reentered the race in 1992. That didn’t help him. He was ahead until then. Support got a tad shaky.

Then, he reportedly saw aliens on his lawn. Not the illegal border-jumper kind but the Alpha Centauri kind. That didn’t help him. Support got even more shaky.

[TomGuy]

Then, his selection of Admiral Stockdale didn’t help. Many thought Stockdale mentally incapacitated.

[Truthoverpower]

The bushes were just as bad or worse

[TomGuy]

It gets quite tiresome to have Perot blamed for George HW Bush's loss in 1992.

Also, many complained that Bush wasn't campaigning. He didn't seem to start until about 2 weeks before the election, when some polls showed him behind.

Asked after the election loss why he didn't campaign until late, he replied that he was the incumbent and thought that was an automatic win.

The race was his to lose, and he did.

[DoughtyOne]

Then why was Perot our friend in contact with the Clintons during his run for the presidency.

Why did he drop out when he was clearly within reach?

Why did he come back in, when he had killed off his chances?

IMO < the guy was in there to get Clinton elected. It worked.

I like Perot until he pulled these stunts.

It also rubbed me the wrong way to hear of a man trashing the federal government on the issue of spending, when he made his billions off government contracts.

[DoughtyOne]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3762896/posts?page=72#72

[DoughtyOne]

These are my thoughts on him. They don’t match your post precisely, but there is food for thought in it.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3762896/posts?page=72#72

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks. When there was a chance, I would have also.

There wasn’t a prayer of him winning on election day.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3762896/posts?page=72#72

[DoughtyOne]

You know, it baffles me they way the Left played that, and Conservatives suckered for it hook line and sinker.

I wasn’t a fan of Bush in 1992, but compared to the disaster Bill Clinton, there was no way in hell I’d vote for Clinton or take a pass.

Bill Clinton authorized Loral Corporation to give China MIRV and gyro technology that effectively made it’s ICBMs operational. The Chinese missiles were failing. Loral wanted to run an operation out of China that would launch US Business satellites cheaply, for massive profits.

China got the tech.

GHW Bush would never have done that. He had his faults, to be sure. His comments on One World Government were ignorance on display. Still, Clinton as a remedy? No way.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3762896/posts?page=72#72

[DoughtyOne]

He did run the worst campaign I’ve ever seen. I think he was so confident after the Gulf War he thought he was untouchable.

Either his staff was totally clueless, or he over ruled them and ran no campaign.

None the less, Crooked Clinton or the flawed Perot, they didn’t deserve our votes after we knew them better.

Here’s some other comment...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3762896/posts?page=72#72

[DoughtyOne]

Who remained a candidate into election day knowing he didn’t have a prayer? Ross Perot.

He give us Clinton the first time, and he pulled a repeat the second time.

I would have voted for him, until he went skitzoid on us.

In a three-way between Clinton, Perot, and Bush, Bush is the better guy.

Here’s some other comments.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3762896/posts?page=72#72

[lodi90]

In a three-way between Clinton, Perot, and Bush, Bush is the better guy.

---

Did Perot give us Souter and open borders. No. We can thank Bush and the GOP for those.

[DoughtyOne]

The Savings and Loan issue was not his. It developed over a number of years, not just his four.

As for no new taxes, I’ll put up with that rather than vote for a deeply crooked guy like Clinton. He had no morals at all.

Folks talk of his no new taxes as if it equals Clinton giving China our MIRV and Gyro ICBM tech.

As for these stats, they may or may not be accurate. Folks pour over data sets and come up with varied interpretations.

What is presented here backs your view, but if someone worked those numbers up that didn’t agree with your view, they would still find a way to make it look the opposite.

I’ve been exposed to studies for 30 years in my life. I’ve seen competing interests pour over information and come up with as many as three defining data sets that each made sense and conflicted with the others. And each came up with valid arguments against what looked really solid when presented by the others.

Here are more comments.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3762896/posts?page=72#72