Would clinton have won 92 if Perot didn't run and take 19% ?

2005-12-10 13:03:36

#1

Horseman 77: Banned; +160|7285

A speaker at a local college was boo' d off stage when she remarked that

" clinton won only becuase Ross Perot split The Republican Conservative ticket. "

Was this not common knowledge?

He did it both times, I am not sure he impacted the 2nd term election. Lowest voter turn out ever.

The media doesn't push a third party if he's a lib. example who came remember who else ran in 92?

In fact they down right warned Voters that a Vote for Nader would only help Bush2.

When I first saw Perot on TV I got a Chill, like when I first heard the Mr. Ed song played backwards.

Don't know why. Just had a Real bad feeling when I saw his eyes.

My customer knew him personally and spoke highly of him however.

What do you think? be sure to curse or talk about Capitalization, education levels and such.

2005-12-10 16:48:48

#2

atlvolunteer: PKMMMMMMMMMM; +27|7219|Atlanta, GA USA

Perot definitely helped Clinton beat Bush, just like Nader helped Bush2 beat Gore.

2005-12-10 17:14:13

#3

Horseman 77: Banned; +160|7285

atlvolunteer wrote:
Perot definitely helped Clinton beat Bush, just like Nader helped Bush2 beat Gore.

I dont hold with that, the network news and local papers here even told people a Nader Vote was a wasted vote and a vote for Bush.

2005-12-10 17:16:57

#4

atlvolunteer: PKMMMMMMMMMM; +27|7219|Atlanta, GA USA

Isn't that the same thing I said?

2005-12-10 23:44:03

#5

kilroy0097: Kilroy Is Here!; +81|7292|Bryan/College Station, TX

It actually disappointed me that those that voted for Nader couldn't look at the big picture.

In their eyes, Nader was Good, Gore was Bad and Bush was Supreme Evil.

And yet even with all the publicity of the election and even though everyone knew that Nader was a wasted vote, people STILL voted for Nader. They knew they weren't going to get the necessary percentage to be a funded party in the next election, they knew that their vote was only a statement and would do nothing but hurt Gore who they still felt was better than Bush.

And yet they STILL voted for Nader.

The inability for people to look at the big picture absolutely amazes me. It's as if most of this country goes into any sort of decision completely blind and complete based upon the words of whomever they decide to follow. The absolute lack of self education and awareness is mind boggling.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

2005-12-11 10:44:04

#6

Horseman 77: Banned; +160|7285

kilroy0097 wrote:
It actually disappointed me that those that voted for Nader couldn't look at the big picture.

In their eyes, Nader was Good, Gore was Bad and Bush was Supreme Evil.

And yet even with all the publicity of the election and even though everyone knew that Nader was a wasted vote, people STILL voted for Nader. They knew they weren't going to get the necessary percentage to be a funded party in the next election, they knew that their vote was only a statement and would do nothing but hurt Gore who they still felt was better than Bush.

And yet they STILL voted for Nader.

The inability for people to look at the big picture absolutely amazes me. It's as if most of this country goes into any sort of decision completely blind and complete based upon the words of whomever they decide to follow. The absolute lack of self education and awareness is mind boggling.

I believe people do that in protest, its called throwing your vote, In other words Democratic leaders should reliaze where the base is and move closer to it. I believe a lot of Hard core conservatives felt disenfranchised by Bush 1 and did the same.

Nader got most of his Votes from Manhattan Island. Lenin could get elected there.

2007-05-03 18:07:13

#7

Hunter/Jumper: Member; +117|6802

clinton won ONLY becuase of Perot Fact !

Last edited by Hunter/Jumper (2007-05-03 18:07:50)

2007-05-03 18:09:49

#8

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6853|North Carolina

Old ass thread, but I agree.

Under the current system, 3rd party candidates can serve as spoilers.

This is why we need IRV: http://www.fairvote.org/irv/faq.htm

Instant Runoff Voting makes third parties viable without the spoiler effect.

2007-05-03 18:12:32

#9

The_Mac: Member; +96|6673

atlvolunteer wrote:
Perot definitely helped Clinton beat Bush, just like Nader helped Bush2 beat Gore.

He's always contributing his idiocy at the hinderment of his less extreme comrades.

2007-05-03 18:23:38

#10

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6853|North Carolina

Nader's actually a pretty bright guy. I don't agree with all of his views, but he had more integrity than Kerry or Gore..... and a LOT more than Bush.

2007-05-03 18:23:48

#11

BN: smells like wee wee; +159|7216

You have to tip your hat to Clinton, Carville, Begala, etc . They did beat an incumbent who’s approval rating was up in the 90’s

2007-05-03 18:27:00

#12

Major_Spittle: Banned; +276|7103|United States of America

The answer is no, and it is obvious.

Next question.

2007-05-03 18:32:19

#13

sergeriver: Cowboy from Hell; +1,928|7205|Argentina

Would Bush have won 2000 without cheating in Florida?

2007-05-03 18:33:36

#14

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7210

sergeriver wrote:
Would Bush have won 2000 without cheating in Florida?

What came first, the chicken or the egg?

Next question.

2007-05-03 18:34:32

#15

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6853|North Carolina

sergeriver wrote:
Would Bush have won 2000 without cheating in Florida?

Diebold.... Jeb Bush.... hmmmm

2007-05-03 18:46:07

#16

The_Mac: Member; +96|6673

BN wrote:
You have to tip your hat to Clinton, Carville, Begala, etc . They did beat an incumbent who’s approval rating was up in the 90’s

I might as well go to the local jail and tip my hat at all the inmates there. Clinton was rotten.

2007-05-03 18:49:45

#17

Ridir: Semper Fi!; +48|7212

Or the supporters of Perot and all the other 3rd party runners come out to support their canidate. Their votes would not have been tallied because they would not have voted had their person not been running. It probably actually helped so that their party got more votes for congress.

2007-05-03 18:52:04

#18

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6853|North Carolina

The_Mac wrote:
BN wrote:
You have to tip your hat to Clinton, Carville, Begala, etc . They did beat an incumbent who’s approval rating was up in the 90’s
I might as well go to the local jail and tip my hat at all the inmates there. Clinton was rotten.

And Bush #2 hasn't been?

The first Bush was ok (Iran-Contra notwithstanding) -- at least he knew what the fuck he was doing.

2007-05-03 18:52:39

#19

Miller: IT'S MILLER TIME!; +271|7204|United States of America

Bring back the Gipper.

2007-05-03 18:53:20

#20

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6853|North Carolina

more like bring back Eisenhower....

2007-05-03 18:53:40

#21

RECONDO67: Member; +60|7084|miami FL

Hunter/Jumper wrote:
clinton won ONLY because of Perot Fact !

And Bush won because he's brother was the governor of Florida and if you recall he stopped the recount

2007-05-03 18:54:09

#22

Miller: IT'S MILLER TIME!; +271|7204|United States of America

RECONDO67 wrote:
Hunter/Jumper wrote:
clinton won ONLY because of Perot Fact !
And Bush won because he's brother was the governor of Florida and if you recall he stopped the recount

After how many god forsaken recounts?

2007-05-03 18:57:32

#23

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6853|North Carolina

RECONDO67 wrote:
Hunter/Jumper wrote:
clinton won ONLY because of Perot Fact !
And Bush won because he's brother was the governor of Florida and if you recall he stopped the recount

Actually, Gore stopped the recounts. He had the power to push for more, but he respectfully conceded.

2007-05-03 18:58:42

#24

Stingray24: Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy; +1,060|6893|The Land of Scott Walker

Too bad giving smokes and beer to all those homeless folks didn't work for the Dems.

2007-05-03 19:04:49

#25

jonsimon: Member; +224|6943

Wah wah, so and so lost an election to so and so, and they only won because of so and so. Haven't we beaten this poor old horse enough?

BF2S Forums Would clinton have won 92 if Perot didn't run and take 19% ?

atlvolunteer wrote:

kilroy0097 wrote:

atlvolunteer wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

BN wrote:

The_Mac wrote:

BN wrote:

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

RECONDO67 wrote:

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

RECONDO67 wrote:

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

Board footer