Dead at 89. :(
Quote from: Caliga on July 09, 2019, 09:40:18 AM
Dead at 89. :(
:(
Spring-summer of 1992 I was quite taken with the man. Turned out to be a loon, of course.
My dad voted for him. :blush:
RIP
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.
Quote from: Barrister on July 09, 2019, 09:59:55 AM
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.
The Cold War was ending and we were eager for a big shift in politics and a return to the good old pre-WWII days. People were really nervous about Bush wanting to take the opportunity to preserve the international system and make us continue to be responsible for everything. Perot promised a balanced budget and peaceful future...but then turned out to be a nut.
I sure wish Bush had won that election. Ah well.
But Bush didn't feel our pain. :(
Quote from: Valmy on July 09, 2019, 10:02:42 AMI sure wish Bush had won that election. Ah well.
Really? Rather than Clinton?
Quote from: The Larch on July 09, 2019, 12:42:29 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 09, 2019, 10:02:42 AMI sure wish Bush had won that election. Ah well.
Really? Rather than Clinton?
Yes. I may be wrong about this but I feel like most of the things Clinton did that I liked Bush would have done something similar. Clinton's downsides were pretty bad. He is kind of like if Donald Trump was a good statesman.
Quote from: Valmy on July 09, 2019, 12:49:51 PM
Quote from: The Larch on July 09, 2019, 12:42:29 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 09, 2019, 10:02:42 AMI sure wish Bush had won that election. Ah well.
Really? Rather than Clinton?
Yes. I may be wrong about this but I feel like most of the things Clinton did that I liked Bush would have done something similar. Clinton's downsides were pretty bad. He is kind of like if Donald Trump was a good statesman.
The good thing that Clinton did was to help (briefly) balance the budget. On that point I'm not as sure if Bush41 would have been able to do the same. A democrat trying to balance the budget had a way of helping to silence opposition on the left that Bush wouldn't have had.
I would like to think however that Bush wouldn't have dithered over Bosnia for so many years and we might have seen a faster resolution to that problem.
It's an interesting what if though... if Clinton had lost in '92 he would go back to being an obscure regional politician (much like Dukakis), but then so would his wife, and the history of the next 25+ years in US politics would have been so different.
And after 8 years of Bush41, it seems impossible to imagine his son running for President just 4 years later.
Bush's tax increase helped Clinton balance the budget and was a big reason he lost in 1992. So he still might have balanced it. Who knows?
I thought at the time 1992 was a very depressing year politically, but then 2016 made it seem like a happy memory.
Quote from: Barrister on July 09, 2019, 09:59:55 AM
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?
Quote from: Threviel on July 09, 2019, 01:09:59 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 09, 2019, 09:59:55 AM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on July 09, 2019, 01:13:44 PM
Quote from: Threviel on July 09, 2019, 01:09:59 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 09, 2019, 09:59:55 AM
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.
Quote from: Threviel on July 09, 2019, 01:16:54 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 09, 2019, 01:13:44 PM
Quote from: Threviel on July 09, 2019, 01:09:59 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 09, 2019, 09:59:55 AM
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.
Roosevelt came second in the actual election and got 88 electoral votes. Infinitely more than Perot.
And Roosevelt was also also a nut.
Quote from: Threviel on July 09, 2019, 02:13:16 PM
And Roosevelt was also also a nut.
If only we had a few more as nutty.
I watched one of his 30-minute commercials/campaign ads in tribute. How things have changed in politics. :(
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 09, 2019, 04:03:43 PM
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.
Quote from: The Larch on July 09, 2019, 12:42:29 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 09, 2019, 10:02:42 AMI 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.
Quote from: Barrister on July 09, 2019, 01:13:44 PM
Quote from: Threviel on July 09, 2019, 01:09:59 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 09, 2019, 09:59:55 AM
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%
Quote from: Valmy on July 09, 2019, 10:02:42 AM
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.
Maybe Bush's hips didn't lie. :)