Ross Perot and the Election of '92

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-10-26 04:27pm

For those of you old enough to recall the event, what kind of revelation was it to have discovered that a Reform Party candidate had managed to wrangle up to 19% of the popular vote?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-10-26 04:29pm

Axis Kast wrote:For those of you old enough to recall the event, what kind of revelation was it to have discovered that a Reform Party candidate had managed to wrangle up to 19% of the popular vote?

Verbatim:

What tha.......

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2004-10-26 04:46pm

I was highly amused. I really liked his idea to take no pay as POTUS during his time in office.

Sometimes I wonder if he could have won......

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-10-26 04:52pm

LadyTevar wrote:I was highly amused. I really liked his idea to take no pay as POTUS during his time in office.

Sometimes I wonder if he could have won......

He brilliantly succeded in drawing all of the secular, fiscal conservatives away from Bush I allowing Clinton to win office with an astonishingly low 42% of the popular vote.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2004-10-26 05:00pm

I would really liked to have seen how he would have done if he hadn't had that abrieviated pull out for his daughter's wedding.

I think he lost a bunch of people who might have voted for him if he'd stayed through the whole campaign, but then again if he stayed he might have shown himself to be the wack job that he is.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2004-10-26 06:39pm

Didn't the polls show him doing relaively well before deciding drop out and then rejoining the race weeks before the election?

Flakin · Post by **Flakin** » 2004-10-26 06:53pm

Perot's finest moment was his MTV performance.

Clinton turned up another day and was being all cool with 'the kids'.

But when Perot showed up he was **COMPLETELY** zoned in, staring into the camera, unblinking, as he answered every question. He was freaky.

Equinox2003 · Post by **Equinox2003** » 2004-10-26 07:11pm

Ross never rose higher than last in the 92 polls. 19 or 20% I think he
got which was great!! I wonder whatever became of Ross.....
His 20% or so is certainly more than any modern 3rd party guy such
as Nader will get.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2004-10-26 07:16pm

Perot might have done better with a better VP. IIRC, his guy fell asleep during the VP debates.

Equinox2003 · Post by **Equinox2003** » 2004-10-26 07:41pm

Yes, I recall that now. Adm. James Stockdale, who did not fare too well
in the VP debate vs Dan Quayle and Al Gore. There had been talk that
Ross would ask Jesse Jackson to be his VP, but that was an 'unconfirmed
report'
Stockdale was the source of a funny SNL skit after the debate in which
Ross ditches him onthe side of the road...
Stockdale was a cool guy though, a war vet, even had a made for TV
movie about him.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-10-26 07:51pm

Perot later tapped Donald Trump for a presidential run.

Forbes also tried to make it.

The most successful third party in modern history was that of Wallace - the American Independants.

The thing I dislike about the Reform party is its "folsky" agenda; it's over-emphasis on "fair trade" is really just a euphamism for tarriffs and protectionism. Perot and Trump's railings against free trade are unusual, to say the least, for those in their position.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-10-26 11:49pm

Col. Crackpot wrote:
LadyTevar wrote:I was highly amused. I really liked his idea to take no pay as POTUS during his time in office.

Sometimes I wonder if he could have won......
He brilliantly succeded in drawing all of the secular, fiscal conservatives away from Bush I allowing Clinton to win office with an astonishingly low 42% of the popular vote.

Well, yeah, I suppose he drew most of his support from disaffected conservatives, but his anti-free trade ideology also took quite a few votes from Democrats, especially union voters.

BTW, Perot ran as an Independent in 1992, not as a Reform candidate.

White Cat · Post by **White Cat** » 2004-10-27 03:10am

Equinox2003 wrote:Yes, I recall that now. Adm. James Stockdale, who did not fare too well in the VP debate vs Dan Quayle and Al Gore.

They let a third-party candidate into the '92 debates? How'd that happen?

No wonder Nader is so pissed off.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2004-10-28 10:37am

White Cat wrote:
Equinox2003 wrote:Yes, I recall that now. Adm. James Stockdale, who did not fare too well in the VP debate vs Dan Quayle and Al Gore.
They let a third-party candidate into the '92 debates? How'd that happen?

No wonder Nader is so pissed off.

The difference was that Perot had a chance slightly greater than a snowball in hell of winning the election. Nader hasn't reached the magical 5% mark that Perot got.

Sam Or I · Post by **Sam Or I** » 2004-10-28 10:48pm

If he would not have dropped out..................

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-10-29 08:01am

Nader hasn't reached the magical 5% mark that Perot got.

15%, which is the standard that the debate commitee uses. When Perot ran in 96, he only nabbed 8%, and he wasn't invited to the debates.

White Cat · Post by **White Cat** » 2004-10-31 02:44am

Is that based on opinion polls, or something more concrete? What happens if one polls says somebody's above 15% and another one says he's below?

UCBooties · Post by **UCBooties** » 2004-10-31 02:58am

The reason Perot would have been an ineffective president was because he spent all of his campaigning talking about how much both parties sucked and how much the system needed to be revamped. Good message considering that's what a lot of people think already. Bad for a president though because no president can work an agenda without supporters in Congress. I'm not sure they'd be willing to help him after all the time he spent railing against them and the institution they were a part of. So he'd be unable to concretely deliver on any campaign promise or political agenda. The other problem would be that, without a party agenda to at least nominaly decide policy decisions (with generous allowances for the president's personal opinions) an independant president gets to just arbitrarily decide on any bill presented to him. It's like Congress is handing the president a big policy grab bad, because without some sort of central ideology his constituents can hold him to, he can sign or veto what he pleases. This is why, while I believe that third parties have a legitimate purpose in the two-party system (as a livertarien I'd be pretty hypocritical not to) I worry about the prospect of an independant or third party candidate, especialy someone like Perot, who spent most of his time ensuring no one on either side would vote for him. At least Nader would be able to strangles some support out of the Democrats.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2004-10-31 05:07pm

HemlockGrey wrote:
Nader hasn't reached the magical 5% mark that Perot got.
15%, which is the standard that the debate commitee uses. When Perot ran in 96, he only nabbed 8%, and he wasn't invited to the debates.

Next time I'll look the info up, rather than try to remember from 12 years ago what the magic number is. I think I was thinking of the matching funds from the government requirements, rather than the debate requirements.

They ought to just have every candidate who's on the ballot in enough states to win (i.e. they could win 270 electoral votes) in the debate. It would eliminate the one-state people (like the Bear Flag Republic group, or those wonky Libertarian National Socialist Green people), but allow more diversity in the debates.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Ross Perot and the Election of '92

Ross Perot and the Election of '92

Re: Ross Perot and the Election of '92