For the 1,000,000th time. Ross Perot gave us Clinton

[dave29]

Twice. Not the DLC.

That is all.

[Selatius]

1. He split the vote far more than Nader, but the effect is...

the same. The third party candidate splits the vote on the ideological side he is closest with. As a result, the opposite side can win by virtue of simply having a united base even if that isn't a majority of all votes cast.

That's the consequence of having a first-past-the-post voting system that only favors two political parties. Nader's run helped Bush Jr., while Perot's run helped Clinton win.

Neither Clinton nor Bush ever won a majority of the vote in 1992 and 2000, respectively.

[DemPopulist]

5. Sorry

It just isn't true in the case of Perot. His "ideology" was very ambigious - a left-winger who disapproved of NAFTA and the Gulf War could vote for Perot (who espoused both opinions) just as easily as a right-winger who was mad at Bush. Not true with Nader, whose views were clearly closer to Gore's.

Perot dropped out the race on the last day of the Democratic convention, and from that point until his re-entry at the beginning of October, Bush NEVER led Clinton in ANY poll. In fact, Clinton was generally over 50% and ahead by a much greater margin than he was after Perot came back.

[Selatius]

8. You may be right, but note the vote totals

Clinton did not garner 50% of the vote plus one in order to qualify as having won a "majority" of the vote. In fact, he didn't reach 50 percent in 1992 and 1996. My argument still stands with respect to first-past-the-post voting systems. This kind of voting system has unpredictable results with third parties.

[DemPopulist]

2. For the 1,000,000th time....

BULLSHIT. Neither time. But it wasn't the DLC either.

That is all.

[M_Moretti]

11. Still the rabid far-left will NEVER elect anyone

In fact, the right wing were only able to get away with painting environmentalism, women's rights, and a plethora of other democratic issues as being kooky and bad for the people, etc... because of the more rabid elements of the far leftist extreme. Issues that democrats helped raise awareness of, so that average citizens saw how important and relevant those issues were for them, became freaky and irrelevant after the likes of the Reagan administration were able to paint them that way because of extremists.

If anything has helped ensure that we didn't get a leader elected who cared about alternative sources of energy and dealing with greenhouse gasses and the like, it's been because of the freaky fringe elements of the left have made those issues seem ridiculous and republican naysayers seem more stable in comparison.

[NYCGirl]

15. I'll take extremists like the DLC's whipping boy Michael Moore over

sane republican naysayers like Bill Frist any day.

[paulk]

21. bill frist managed to get himself elected

maybe mr. moore should run for the senate?

[Selatius]

20. I'm sorry, but I strongly object to these words

Yes, I admit that I am an anarcho-socialist, and if you want to paint me as "fringe," be my guest, but if you want to assert that folks like me are to blame for losing, I'm calling you out.

We have fought and sacrificed as hard as any other in this country for the freedoms we enjoy. We were there when the first fights broke out for the right to unionize. We were there along with everyone else when it came to fighting for worker protections and the first minimum wage. We were there along with others when it came to fighting for civil rights and an end to the Vietnam War, and we were there when it came to fighting for the environment.

I can't help but think you've let off the main attackers when it comes to freedoms we enjoy. You seem to have totally absolved the corporate news media's responsibility in catapulting rightwing propaganda, and you seem to have totally absolved the corporatists when it comes to buying out Congress and pushing the corporate agenda to destroy the middle class.

Some of us "extremists" were actually on the ground trying to fight for the people's votes in Ohio. We were there, and we fought along with everyone else, and this is the thanks we get?

[LostinVA]

23. What's "the rabid far-left"?

Who are they? What are their views? I've never meant one of them, although certain people talk about them alot.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

25. If your reasoning had any validity,

Coulter, Savage, Robertson, Falwell, Rush etc etc etc ad nauseam would have brought the GOP to about the same level of electability the Communist Party has.

That obviously hasn't happened, and is therefore a counterexample. Unless you believe the aforementioned people are reasonable and moderate. Do you?

[Blutodog]

3. Maybe Yes maybe No

We'll never know for sure if that's the case because Bu$h 1 was very un-popular in the fall of 1992 because of his lackluster performance during the recession of 90'-92' and emotional tone deafness. Perot did split the vote but how do we know who these folks would have voted for if he hadn't raun? Maybe , most wouldn't have voted at all?

[Viva_La_Revolution]

9. I would have voted for Clinton

never for Bush.

I was young and dumb. I was most impressed because Perot started with nothing and became a millionaire. I figured if he could do that, he could get the country out of the debt the Reagan/Bush1 years gave us.

I voted for Clinton the second time around.

[TheFarseer]

4. I wouldn't go that far

It's hard to say what the outcome would have been without Ross, although I agree he certainly helped. I once crunched the numbers (I was super bored) to determine if Clinton would have won without Perot. I factored in (can't remember what I did exactly) but something like 50% of his votes go to Bush, 25% to Clinton and 25% stay home. Some states flipped, but Clinton still won. Of course that's not scientific AT ALL but just posted for entertainment purposes :)

As for the second election, no way on this planet or any other planet does Bob Dole beat Clinton.

[DemPopulist]

7. Giving Bush 50% of Perot votes is very generous

But here's a pretty even-handed analysis of what might have happened without Perot: http://www.fairvote.org/plurality/perot.htm">Plurality Wins in the 1992 Presidential Race: Perot's Contribution to Clinton's Victory

[Mend]

6. Thank you Ross Perot...he stood up and told the truth about the

repukes the way no Democrat had the balls/ovaries to do. They're too busy being "nice". I will never forget how Perot scorned repuke intrusion into a woman's right to choose. I don't know who gave us Clinton, maybe God, but Perot helped by his rhetoric.

[onenote]

10. you might be able to make a case for 92, but not so much for 96

No one can say for certain how many of the Perot voters would've voted for Bush in 92 or Dole in 96 or how many would've stayed home.

However, in 96, you have to basically assume that virtually all of the Perot votes would've gone to Dole in order to swing the election. For example, Clinton still wins in a landslide if you give Dole 80 percent of the Perot votes and Clinton only 20 percent. In fact, I'm pretty certain Clinton still wins if you give Dole 90 percent of the Perot vote.

[stray cat]

12. I would love to have Clinton back

[Zynx]

13. THIS. IS, BULLCRAP.

Definately not the second time as Clinton almost won a total majority with Perot in the race and Perot voters were going to vote about 40-45% for Clinton in the event of Perot not being in the race.

In 1992, Perot may have given Clinton Georgia and Montana, but nothing else. Statistical studies have been done that show that Perot voters were just as likely to vote for Clinton as Bush. Note when Perot jumped back in the race that he took just as much from Clinton, actually a little more, than he took from Bush.

[Awsi Dooger]

14. This is outright garbage

Bush 41 had horrendous approval ratings on election day and was considered an out of touch wimp who was mostly concerned with looking at his watch during a debate. There is zero chance that voters who made an offbeat choice in Ross Perot would have otherwise switched to the conventional unpopular incumbent, minus Perot on the ballot. And the percentages needed to flop the result are massive, in fact laughable if you know anything about probability and distribution. This is one of the biggest myths in recent history, political or otherwise.

[patricia92243]

16. So, what third party person can we get to make sure a Democrat wins

for the 08 election?

[FARAFIELD]

17. thats a JOKE

Bush 1 got a little over 39% so that was a very anti incumbent total, whereas in 96 clinton won with a little over 49, you could have given dole all of perot votes and clinto still would have won

[WI_DEM]

18. I think Clinton would have won despite Perot

[Balbus]

19. True dat!

[paulk]

22. not true, and it's been debunked a million times here on DU

from Wikepedia:

"Perot's almost 19% of the popular vote made him the most successful third-party presidential candidate in terms of popular vote since Theodore Roosevelt in the 1912 election. Some analysts believe that Perot acted as a spoiler in the election, primarily drawing votes away from Bush and allowing Clinton to win many states with less than a majority of votes. However, exit polling indicated that Perot voters would have split their votes evenly among Clinton and Bush had Perot not been in the race, and an analysis by FairVote - Center for Voting and Democracy suggested that, while Bush would have won more electoral votes with Perot out of the race, he would not have gained enough to reverse Clinton's victory."


there are numerous other sources on the internet that arrive at the same conclusion. Exit polling at the time showed a fairly even split among Perot voters

[deaniac21]

24. I would like to point out that anyone can edit Wikepedia.

[paulk]

27. wikepedia isn't the only source for the info on exit polling

the information in the wikepedia article is all over the internet.

google it

[fujiyama]

26. Thanks for the flamebate

hit and run post.

BTW, have any data to back that up? It's been shown that Clinton likely would have won in '92 regardless. He likely wouldn't have won all the states he won (GA and MT for example), but he still would have won. Bush I got 39% for God's sake.

And there isn't a CHANCE IN HELL that Dole would have won in '96.