Sadly, I was one of the Perot people. I had been a Reagan democrat prior to that, had voted for GB-1 in term one, and was at something of a crossroads when that election occurred. I, like many Perot voters, was tired of the political games and wanted something new.
Hindsight is, of course, 20-20 - Perot split the vote and the 'toon won without anything close to a majority (a little fact that doesn't get in the way when democrats talk about the 2000 election). I always wonder how that vote would have went had Perot not entered the scene. I also wonder at times what would have happened if Perot would have won. Now THAT would be an interesting scenario. :^)
I will never forget that. When Perot first dropped out Bush 41 surged ahead and then Perot entered the race again and was a deciding factor.
I always wonder how that vote would have went had Perot not entered the scene. I also wonder at times what would have happened if Perot would have won. Now THAT would be an interesting scenario. :^)
I do too. If Bush 41 had won there probably would never had been the Newt revolution of 94, where pubs won the House for the first time in 40 years, and kept electoral control of both houses during the 90's and they would have kept that streak of electoral victories alive for the Congress elected in 2000 if Jumpin Jimmy hadn't decided to become Tom Daschle's toadie.
Perot made some amends by endorsing Bush 43 before the 2000 election.
All history is very intersting, but when I see this thread, I recall my dad, a big Reagan supporter, saying in 82 that Reagan couldn't make it in 84, and we lived in an area where the economy was just as bad as Cleveland's.
We got 19 months till election day and I think that Bush 43 is following the Reagan model(ala Karl Rove, i.e. ala Michael Deaver).