R.I.P. Ross Perot

[Barrister]

It's still crazy to think that for awhile in 1992 Perot was leading both Bush and Clinton in the polls.  There've been lots of 3rd party candidates over the years, but none were ever a threat to win the darn thing besides Perot.

Roosevelt?

Well I don't think they had public opinion polls in 1912, but I don't think Roosevelt ever had much chance of winning back then.  He just split the GOP vote and allowed Wilson the easy victory.

Sounds familiar.

In June of 1992 Perot led opinion polls with 39% of the vote (Clinton and Bush were tied at 24%).  He could have won the whole thing.

[Threviel]

Roosevelt came second in the actual election and got 88 electoral votes. Infinitely more than Perot.

[Threviel]

And Roosevelt was also also a nut.

[Valmy]

And Roosevelt was also also a nut.

If only we had a few more as nutty.

[Tonitrus]

I watched one of his 30-minute commercials/campaign ads in tribute.  How things have changed in politics.

[Barrister]

I watched one of his 30-minute commercials/campaign ads in tribute.  How things have changed in politics.

That's not a sign that things have changed - Perot's 30 minute infomercials were always one of a kind in politics.

[DGuller]

I sure wish Bush had won that election. Ah well.

Really? Rather than Clinton?

I'm not sure that Clinton was a good thing in the long run.  His personal success ultimately cost the Democratic Party dearly, which is a bad thing for the country given that the increasingly authoritarian GOP is the other party.

[jimmy olsen]

It's still crazy to think that for awhile in 1992 Perot was leading both Bush and Clinton in the polls.  There've been lots of 3rd party candidates over the years, but none were ever a threat to win the darn thing besides Perot.

Roosevelt?

Well I don't think they had public opinion polls in 1912, but I don't think Roosevelt ever had much chance of winning back then.  He just split the GOP vote and allowed Wilson the easy victory.

The Dem convention was long and drawn out and Clark started out with a hundred more votes than Wilson and nearly won.

If Clark, a conservative democratic had eked out the nomination, the progressive vote would not have been split and would instead have rallied around TR. Clark was also prone to overconfidence and not that great a campaigner, he lost his first re-election attempt in congress.

I think a win in those circumstances was possible given how weak some of the performances by democratic candidates between 1904 and 1924 were. 1904 they got 37.4%, 1920 they got 34.1% and 1924 they got 28.8%

[grumbler]

I sure wish Bush had won that election. Ah well.

Just.... wow.  If Bush had been that great, he would have won re-election.  Instead, we had the best eight-year run of economic success since the 1950s.  Clinton was actually paying DOWN the debt while keeping unemployment low (about half of what it was under Bush). He saw more job creation in eight years than Roosevelt in 12 - and didn't start with Roosevelt's unemployment numbers.

I could do with more of that.

[The Brain]

Maybe Bush's hips didn't lie.