Waiting for Perot

[reddread]

Would the Clinton campaign prefer a third party challenger ala Perot, yet again?

[tonyt53]

1. Uh, Ross is a Republican

[reddread]

3. thank you

thank you very much.

[RKP5637]

4. In 1992 he was an Independent, not sure what he is today.

Maybe he was an Independent republican back then ...

[reddread]

6. Reform Party?

oddly enough, his giant cut of the 92 results were said to be unattributable to Clinton's 92 victory,
while Ralph Nader's slice of 2000 gave us GW Bush. At least in Florida.
Where Jeb! was governor and Kathleen Harris was in charge.
Where the SCOTUS shut down a proper recount that eventually showed Gore the winner anyway
you slice it.
That damned Nader.

[RKP5637]

12. Yes, I think it was. n/t

[artislife]

19. I have used his name here before

Only got one reply.. maybe only one of them could handle the truth about 1992.

[BreakfastClub]

31. And oddly enough, Trump ran as a reform party candidate in 2000. nt

[reddread]

37. thanks

I knew I had heard his name before.

[PyaarRevolution]

38. Say what you will about Perot.

I respect the man. I mean at least he had some sense of loyalty to his employees when he rescued them when they were hostages. Along these lines he opposed NAFTA.

Why can't there be more American Big Businessmen/Businessmen like Perot? At least he wasn't being a traitor to our country like Jack Welch and others.

That reminds me...is he dead? I mean I thought he would've gotten airplay on media since he was the big one that opposed NAFTA back in the day.

[RKP5637]

2. He was the first one, I think, to try to wake people up that the

giant sucking sound was jobs being sucked out of the US.

[pampango]

17. Pat Buchanan ran a similar campaign in their primary in 1992 but eventually endorsed Bush I.

In The Great Betrayal, Buchanan argues that free trade contributes to environmental destruction. He blames multinational corporations, saying they do not have the same vested interest in respecting nature as "economic patriots." He also opposes the Kyoto Protocol. Buchanan proposes economic nationalism based on the principles of the American School. He says that "the country comes before the economy; and the economy exists for the people." A critic of free trade, he supports repealing the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and raising tariffs on imported goods to provide relief to domestic industry. Arguing that "you need imports to pay the taxes," he sees tariffs as a vehicle for allowing for tax relief for domestically made products, making them more competitive.

Buchanan does not view tariffs as something that should be set so high as to ensure the foreign product will not be bought (and the tariff hence uncollected), but something that should be adjusted to maximize tax flow. In 2004, he wrote, "Tariffs raise the prices of goods. True. But all taxes—tariffs, income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes—are factored into the final price of the goods we buy. When a nation puts a tariff on foreign goods coming into the country, it is able to cut taxes on goods produced inside the country. This is the way to give U.S. manufacturers and workers a 'home-field advantage.'"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Pat_Buchanan#Trade

[RKP5637]

18. Thanks! n/t

[rock]

5. Some thoughts

1) 80% BSers will act like adults and vote for Clinton if she is Dem candidate (previously published poll);
2) 25% Republicans voters will vote for Clinton if she is the Dem candidate and Trump is the Rep candidate (previously published poll;
3) How many of BSers showing this tantrum will follow you?
4) Bernie will become a nation wide pariah and lose all political powere in the US if he breaks off and runs independently; what's the likelihood?

[reddread]

7. 2 kinds of people?

Im sorry you cant follow the gist and ramifications of my OP.

[rock]

8. Still don't

I'm real slow.

[pressbox69]

10. Thanks for that info.

[rock]

11. Anytime

Glad to be of service.

[RKP5637]

13. I don't think he would run as an independent, that would be a disaster

for everyone.

[rock]

15. It would clearly be political ruination for Bernie

I have said elsewhere what the biggest thing this would make Bernie (and got hidden). I can only guess what it would do the Democratic Party.

[RKP5637]

16. These hides are often ridiculous. What you are saying is perfectly logical IMO and simply an

analysis of consequences.

[rock]

22. See for yourself

Search for 'rock' and show. I'm proud of it but it probably deserved hiding.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511868768

[RKP5637]

24. Yep, that was over the top! n/t

[rock]

28. But i can stand the hides, no skin off of my nose

[RKP5637]

36. ...

[passiveporcupine]

23. That's not at all what Rock said

The hide was more than well deserved.

[RKP5637]

25. Yep, it was! n/t

[PyaarRevolution]

39. As long as he's being treated fairly.

If they're pulling the Republican bs of rigged machines then I think Bernie should go independent and say "Screw the Democratic party". I want Bernie to get a fair shot and if there's an question that he's not then he's within' his rights to go independent and I, along with many if not most other Bernie supporters, would back this. I repeat that this is in the circumstance he has NOT been given a fair shot.

[artislife]

20. This is going into my little file of

Oh you better read this before you vote file.

I love the use of the term BSers. This helps me with my thoughts about unity with the followers of that woman.

[sofa king]

9. I think it's just the opposite this time.

It's true that in 1992 Ross Perot spoiled the election for GHW Bush.

But things have changed.

If Ted Cruz runs as a third-party and wins some of the Confederacy, while Trump focuses on the razor-thin margin in only five states--FL, OH, NC, PA, AZ--it's possible that pre-election polling will be confused enough that the race falls within the margin of error, and Republicans always win when it's close enough to steal.

The object won't be to win, it will be to make sure that nobody wins. If no candidate wins a majority of electoral votes, the election goes to Congress, and since Republicans have gerrymandered a solid majority in the House they have the power to do what they do best:

NOTHING!

If Congress does not vote to appoint a President, the Speaker of the House inherits the office as per the 25th Amendment. Paul Ryan becomes President without a single vote, and Republican insiders win by stealing it from all of the candidates.

It's not crazy and it's becoming more plausible every day. Cruz's announcement of a running mate at this point is surely a preliminary step to bouncing out as a third-party, which he will do before the end of next month.

[ericson00]

21. Its a LIE that Perot "spoiled the election" for GHW Bush

1. Exit polls from election night 1992, a better method than just saying what one wants to believe, show that Clinton would have won over 50% of the vote absent Perot, and thus in more than 9 in 10 trials, the election.

2. George H.W. Bush's approval ratings in 1992 rivaled Jimmy Carter's in 1980. Both in their election years were not only lower than Reagan 84 and Clinton 96, but lower than Bush 04 and Obama 12. You don't win with under 40% and below approvals.

3. The GOP (and the anti-Clinton fringe left) also leave out that when Perot was not in the race, which was from July to the start of October 1992, Bush Sr. still polled near the 37% that approved of his performance and that he won in the end. Nate Silver, a data and stats expert, also disagrees with the idea that Perot cost Bush tho he does believe he hurt Clinton.

4. Ross Perot was not a conservative like Nader was a liberal or Trump is running as a conservative. Perot was pro-choice, pro-gay rights, and against trickle down economics.

5. For Bush to have won 50% of the popular vote (and thus probably the election), assuming ALL Perot voters still would have voted in his absense, he would have needed to win 66.367% of Perot vote (12.55 out of 18.91%). Do the math. If the >24% of Perot who told the exit polls they'd have stayed home indeed had abstained in his absence, then he needs 71.5% of the remaining Perot voters to get to 50%. Doesn't happen with sub-40% approvals.

6. When the data becomes too much for conservatives to handle, they say "Perot greatly weakened Bush" as if Perot was a cause of Bush's problem. That goes against history; by February, before Perot announced on the 22nd of that month in 1992, Bush had fallen hard and fast in approvals (cited above) to barely 40%. Other elections which featured an incumbent that unpopular, 1968 and 1980, also had 3rd party candidates with strong showings. Neither Wallace or Anderson changed the outcome of their elections, even tho the losing sides of those elections tried to argue they did (Carter still believes Anderson was a major cause of his 1980 loss). A strong 3rd party candidate is a symptom of looming defeat, as are < 40% approvals.

[NurseJackie]

14. Ahhh ... blackmail threat? Or ...

... just a random question to promote thoughtful discussion about what Bernie's role will be now that it's clear that Bernie will not be the nominee? It's unclear where you're going with that.

As far as I can tell, Bernie will be supporting the party's nominee.

[silvershadow]

26. Every single thing Perot told us in 1992 was true. And is has played out exactly as he told us.

The Third Way won that election and then propelled the agenda forward. His famous speech should be posted here daily. I used to post it quite often. It would surely be damning to some candidates.

[tokenlib]

40. He was sure right about NAFTA and the Free Trade stuff...n/t

[silvershadow]

41. Oh and he gave details. He told how wages would be going down, not up, as we

continue to compete against labor around the world. He didn't predict it, though. He KNEW it. Because he was one of them. He was privy to their thoughts and ideas, plans and long-term goals.

[alcibiades_mystery]

27. What's left of Sandersite analysis

[wyldwolf]

29. Ross Perot didn't alter the outcome of '92

[reddread]

32. was Trump meant to assure the outcome of '16?

[wyldwolf]

34. what does your tinfoil hat tell you?

[DJ13]

35. Its a possibility, given his close ties to the Clintons in the past

But if he was meant to dilute the GOP vote to help Hillary I think the Clinton's miscalculated how far Trump would make it in the primaries, and how large his ego is when he starts the GE run against her.

Having gone this far, I doubt he would stick to any private deals now that he's within striking distance of actually winning.

Never trust a con man.

[Tarc]

30. As always, your deep and thoughtful questions are welcome at the DU

[Algernon Moncrieff]

33. Are you talking about Sanders running Indy or someone else?

The most recent three noteworthy third party /indy bids:

1980: John Anderson: He was a Republican. He started in the early 60s as an ultra conservative, but became moderate-to-liberal by '80. He ran as an alternative to Carter (who many Dems and Independents felt was a failed President) and Reagan (whose ideas on cutting the budget and cutting taxes while raising defense spending were sharply criticized by Anderson). He got about 7% of the vote (less than Wallace got in '68)

1992: Ross Perot: Perot, as you likely know, was a populist billionaire. He privately financed a mission to rescue employees from Iran in 1979.I've always been led to believe that he loathed H.W. Bush, and that factored into his decision to run in '92. Initially, I supported Perot, although I switched to Clinton after he dropped out (prior to his restarting his campaign). Small businessmen I knew liked him -- many of whom had no prior interest in politics. In some ways, he probably attracts many of the same people who vote for Trump, but Perot never made closing the borders and deporting immigrants a cornerstone of his campaign that I can remember.

2000: Ralph Nader: The longtime consumer advocate ran as a Green in 2000, and is often (rightly or wrongly) blamed for stripping off votes that cost Al Gore the election. In terms of his support base, it probably most closely resembles current Sanders supporters.

Pat Buchannan also ran as an Indy in 2000 (didn't do much). Huntsman, Webb, and Bloomberg all explored 3rd party runs and decided not to. Had a Cruz-Sanders election emerged, I suspect Bloomberg would have run to try and capture the center.