If the year was 1992, I would sign Ross Perot's ballot petition.

[LoZoccolo]

[Dr Fate]

1. And if it was 2006, you would be supporting Joe Lieberman (I-3rd party)? n/t

n/t

[LoZoccolo]

5. Judging by my DU posts, which anybody can look up, I would not support Joe Lieberman.

[Dr Fate]

10. Judging by your OP, I thought you were expressing support for conservative 3rd parties.

Good to know that you never supported or defended the DLC or any of it's members.

They are the REAL examples of DEM party spliterists.

Thanks for being a good Liberal!

[LoZoccolo]

13. I support ballot access for conservative third parties.

[Dr Fate]

14. I was just thinking back to your openly pro-DLC days.

Now I see what you are saying.

The DLC also supported access for 3rd parties when they ran Lieberman. Leopards, spots, etc.

[Hannah Bell]

2. perot = spoiler for the dems.

[Dr Fate]

3. Just like Lieberman's DLC sponsored run was a spoiler for the nominated DEM. n/t

n/t

[sharp_stick]

8. Well not really

Perot sucked votes from the pretend Libertarians of the Republican party thereby giving Clinton a higher share of the overall vote.

Lieberdouch sucked votes from the idiots that weren't paying attention along with pretty much every Republican in Connecticut thereby giving his own inflated ego and his employment history a massive boost.

[Dr Fate]

12. As far as the end results go, yes, really. The DEMS lost, the DLC sponsored 3rd party won.

n/t

[LoZoccolo]

6. That is demonstrably false.

[Hannah Bell]

9. is it? demonstrate it then.

perhaps you've misunderstood me: a meant spoiler who served the interest of dems by drawing off the libertarians from the pubs.

[LoZoccolo]

11. Are you sure you want me to do this?

[LoZoccolo]

15. You did?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJXU7EVXs2A

[Hannah Bell]

17. yes, i did. i don't much care what *you* believe, however

[Ozymanithrax]

4. Perot was a spoiler for Republicans in 1992 and 1996...

and now he would be a spoiler for Democrats.

What has happened to the Democrats? (Rhetorical question, but answer if you must.)

[LoZoccolo]

7. That is speculation.

[Ozymanithrax]

19. Since that time, it has been the best speculation...

Bill Clinton won with a plurality of only 43% in 1992. Ross Perot won 19% of the vote. Clinton won 22 states that Bush carried in 1988. Many of these he won by a very narrow margin. Many of these states went back or were once again hyper close in 1996 and with Bush there after.

Yes, a lot of people have argued on the Perot affect nation wide. But he was a clear influence in a number of states.

I still think that others here think that Perot, or someone like him since he is a bit long in the tooth to run, would act as a spoiler, throwing the election to the Republicans. Perot on the issues shows that in many of his stands he is to the left of Obama. http://www.ontheissues.org/Ross_Perot.htm

[DefenseLawyer]

20. It's only speculation for Clinton apologists

Clinton won with 43% of the vote to Bush's 38% and Perot got 19%. Clinton won 11 states by less than 5%. Without Perot there is no way Clinton got elected in 92.

[LoZoccolo]

22. I agree with you here, and with the subject of the post to which I responded.

[Hannah Bell]

18. my meaning was "a spoiler 'for' (for the interest of) dems"

i don't understand the point of your question, rhetorical or otherwise.

[Ozymanithrax]

21. If you look at him on the issues...

http://www.ontheissues.org/Ross_Perot.htm

and assuming, as I did (for which I appologize) that he would be a spoiler throwing the election to the Republcians, then it would appear that the Democratic party has moved Right since 1992 and 1996. I lived through the period and many Republicans I knew at the time voted for Perot.

[Hannah Bell]

23. ok, gotcha & agreed.

[leftstreet]

24. Very true

Thanks for the depressing reminder of how far the left has trotted right

:-(

[Ozymanithrax]

16. Ross Perot, on the issues...

http://www.ontheissues.org/Ross_Perot.htm