- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 7/9/19 at 10:23 am to Lsupimp
Perot set the stage for Ron Paul, and later Trump. He was the original Tea Party candidate before the Tea Party was a thing. Bush lost that race on his own. He was old and out of touch. Clinton was the young, hip, cool guy. He was a better president than Bush too. He doesn't get enough credit for working with Gingrich and the Republicans.
Posted on 7/9/19 at 10:26 am to CU_Tigers4life
My other point would be that, apart from the sex scandal, Clinton was objectively no worse and probably a better President than daddy Bush.
Posted on 7/9/19 at 10:38 am to mays
quote:are you fricking retarded?
This is poor logic. National vote totals don't matter but if they did, Clinton received 5.8 million more votes than Bush. Bush doesn't make that up if Perot isn't there.
Posted on 7/9/19 at 10:45 am to CU_Tigers4life
woah. I would have bet money on him being much older than that (and long since dead).
Posted on 7/9/19 at 10:47 am to CU_Tigers4life
His best quote: 'I've paid enough taxes to buy a front row seat to Utopia and I'm still waitin' for the curtain to go up.'
Posted on 7/9/19 at 10:50 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
This has been thoroughly debunked numerous times over the past 25 years or so. Long story short, Perot took roughly as many votes from Clinton as he did Bush and in only two states did Perot conceivably take enough votes from Bush (relative to Clinton) to affect the outcome in that state.
Please explain how Perot appealed to democrat voters.
Posted on 7/9/19 at 10:57 am to RolltidePA
quote:
Clinton won 12 states by less than 5%; in each of those states Perot had 18-20% of the vote.
And Clinton was just 200,000 votes shy of Bush in Texas and 100,000 in Florida. The what-if scenarios could also go to a 480+ EV total for Clinton.
Perot didn’t attract people because he was a conservative. He was an attractive candidate because he was the ultimate anti-establishment guy.
We were in a recession and Bush had famously raised taxes - anti-establishment voters rebelled. Exit polls showed he drew votes almost equally away from Bush and Clinton.
This post was edited on 7/9/19 at 10:58 am
Posted on 7/9/19 at 10:57 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
He doesn’t seem to understand percentages and relative mathematical data.
Bush would have needed a minimum of 79% of the votes Perot received nationally to take the election, and that’s assuming an ideal distribution across the right states. No estimate for the Perot vote redistribution has ever been higher than about 65/35 for Bush, and in reality probably around 15-20% of those who voted for Perot wouldn’t have voted for either Bush or Clinton.
Oh, for sure I am no mathematician. Who knows how the votes would have broken; or if Perot voters were giving a nice F-you vote and would have stayed at home. The only point that I was trying to make is that looking at the raw numbers there is no denying that Perot had a distinct impact on the race and it affected Bush much more than Clinton. I think the toll it took on the campaign trail was especially bad for Bush. Bush had to spend a lot of time working to not have his vote split by Perot, that wasn't something that Clinton had to worry about as much. Two choices on the right and one on the left is a dumbed down way of putting it.
To your other point about the difference between daddy Bush and Clinton, it was really negligible. Clinton dabbled in gun control and it absolutely killed him. I don't know if Bush would have gone there, but that was about it.
Posted on 7/9/19 at 11:00 am to Chaz95
quote:
The original billionaire patriot presidential candidate.
^^this^^
He tried to be the original Donald Trump. He was wiling to give up everything in order to get the US back where he thought it should be. Gotta respect him for that, at least, even though it backfired horribly
Posted on 7/9/19 at 11:02 am to The Boat
quote:
Please explain how Perot appealed to democrat voters.
Perot won 17% of Republicans and 13% of democrats.
Roper Center polling
Posted on 7/9/19 at 11:03 am to The Boat
quote:
quote:
This has been thoroughly debunked numerous times over the past 25 years or so. Long story short, Perot took roughly as many votes from Clinton as he did Bush and in only two states did Perot conceivably take enough votes from Bush (relative to Clinton) to affect the outcome in that state.
Please explain how Perot appealed to democrat voters.
Different times. The parties were different by 2 degrees instead of 200 like they are today. Think of how different things were. Bush won California in his first election and Texas had only gone red because of Reagan.
There were a lot of people on the fence in '92.
Posted on 7/9/19 at 11:04 am to CU_Tigers4life
quote:
He put Bill Clinton in Office.
Read my lips no new taxes put Bill Clinton in office.
Without a President Buchanan would have left no opening for a Perot or a Clinton.
Posted on 7/9/19 at 11:08 am to CU_Tigers4life
He went to join his buddy, John McCain who put Obama in office.
Posted on 7/9/19 at 11:09 am to CU_Tigers4life
quote:
He put Bill Clinton in Office.
Charisma put Bill Clinton in office.
Posted on 7/9/19 at 11:37 am to RolltidePA
quote:
looking at the raw numbers there is no denying that Perot had a distinct impact on the race and it affected Bush much more than Clinton. I think the toll it took on the campaign trail was especially bad for Bush. Bush had to spend a lot of time working to not have his vote split by Perot, that wasn't something that Clinton had to worry about as much. Two choices on the right and one on the left is a dumbed down way of putting it.
No kidding. How do people not get this?
If Bernie had run as an independent in 2016, Trump might have won 45 states!
ETA:
backing that last statement up, Trump WOULD have won:
- Minnesota
- Colorado
- Nevada
- Virginia
and quite a few others
This post was edited on 7/9/19 at 11:40 am
Posted on 7/9/19 at 12:09 pm to The Boat
quote:
Please explain how Perot appealed to democrat voters.
The same reason Trump did, and the party has a whole was far more moderate in 1992.
Posted on 7/9/19 at 12:23 pm to CU_Tigers4life
quote:As was intended. If you remember, when Perot began polling higher than both Clinton and Bush, he bowed out of the race with the stupid "pictures of my daughter" excuse.
Although Bush broke his pledge on no new taxes, Perot took close to 20% of the national vote. As I recall, Bubba had 43%....That was the difference.
Before getting right back in the race, but losing support because of his perceived "wishy washy" quality.
He ran to put Clinton in office, and it worked.
Posted on 7/9/19 at 12:57 pm to CU_Tigers4life
If you knuckleheads would have voted for Ross instead of corrupt arse Bush, Clinton wouldn't have won.
Bush put Clinton in office.
Bush put Clinton in office.
Posted on 7/9/19 at 1:04 pm to CU_Tigers4life
quote:The studies that I have seen (analyzing the vote, state by state) indicate that he certainly cost Bush a larger number of the popular vote than Clinton, but it is unlikely that he affected the electoral college in any way.
He put Bill Clinton in Office.
This post was edited on 7/9/19 at 1:05 pm
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News