Romney says Ross Perot caused Clinton to win.

[Anarchist420]

Link: http://www.suntimes.com/news/electi...cted-winner-of-maryland-dc-gop-primaries.html

If he really believes that Ross Perot caused Clinton to win, then he's too dumb to be President. However, Dr. Paul is perfectly capable of causing him to lose and Romney is going to be in for a shock when comes up short of 1144 delegates at the RNC.

 

[LumbergTech]

Romney will have a shot at presidency while paul will have his internet fans....

Personally, I hate Romney..but Paul is worse

 

[Bateluer]

This was debated heavily in 1996, Ross Perot siphoned voters away from Dole, causing Clinton to win.

AT P&N has short memories though. Most online communities do.

 

[chowderhead]

This was debated heavily in 1996, Ross Perot siphoned voters away from Dole, causing Clinton to win.

AT P&N has short memories though. Most online communities do.

what? in 1996, Clinton got 49.2% of the vote ... almost 50%. Clinton won 379 Electoral College votes. Perot got 0 ECVs. Even if you gave every single vote that Perot got to Dole, Clinton still got more votes. Without Perot, I guarantee Clinton is over 50% and probably does a little better than Obama did in 2008.

Dole was heavily damaged by Buchanan, Forbes, etc in the primaries and was literally out of money in the summer of 1996. Clinton used his money and attacked Dole for being out of touch, anti-choice, too conservative, etc. Dole had to campaign in Indiana in the final week to save house seats instead of real battleground states.

You could make an argument that Perot took votes away from Bush Sr in 1992 but I would say that the 1992 election was a change election and Bush Sr. was going to lose regardless.

 

[pcgeek11]

Link: http://www.suntimes.com/news/electi...cted-winner-of-maryland-dc-gop-primaries.html

If he really believes that Ross Perot caused Clinton to win, then he's too dumb to be President. However, Dr. Paul is perfectly capable of causing him to lose and Romney is going to be in for a shock when comes up short of 1144 delegates at the RNC.

Shouldn't this be in the jokes forum?

 

[woodie1]

I suspect Romney was talking about the Bush/Clinton race in 1992. At the time I thought Perot did indeed give the election to Clinton.

 

[Anarchist420]

Shouldn't this be in the jokes forum?

Nope.

I suspect Romney was talking about the Bush/Clinton race in 1992

He was.

At the time I thought Perot did indeed give the election to Clinton.

He didn't. Perot was closer to Clinton on NAFTA, gun control, abortion, and direct democracy. I can't believe so many people think Perot actually caused Bush 41 to lose.

You could make an argument that Perot took votes away from Bush Sr in 1992 ...

No one could make that argument without being wrong.

 

[fskimospy]

I suspect Romney was talking about the Bush/Clinton race in 1992. At the time I thought Perot did indeed give the election to Clinton.

This turned out to be false as well. Clinton would have won in 92 with or without Perot.

 

[QuantumPion]

what? in 1996, Clinton got 49.2% of the vote ... almost 50%. Clinton won 379 Electoral College votes. Perot got 0 ECVs. Even if you gave every single vote that Perot got to Dole, Clinton still got more votes. Without Perot, I guarantee Clinton is over 50% and probably does a little better than Obama did in 2008.

Dole was heavily damaged by Buchanan, Forbes, etc in the primaries and was literally out of money in the summer of 1996. Clinton used his money and attacked Dole for being out of touch, anti-choice, too conservative, etc. Dole had to campaign in Indiana in the final week to save house seats instead of real battleground states.

You could make an argument that Perot took votes away from Bush Sr in 1992 but I would say that the 1992 election was a change election and Bush Sr. was going to lose regardless.

In 1992 Perot did not win any states but he had 19% of the popular vote (compared to Bush's 37%). Clinton won with 43%.

 

[fskimospy]

In 1992 Perot did not win any states but he had 19% of the popular vote (compared to Bush's 37%). Clinton won with 43%.

And Clinton would have won without Perot there anyway. Exit polls showed that Perot voters actually favored Clinton by a slight margin over Bush. If Perot had not been in the race, Clinton's margin of victory would likely have been even larger overall. A study on it found that perhaps Bush would have taken Ohio due to a Perot shift, but Clinton still would have crushed him in electoral votes.

 

[PingSpike]

what? in 1996, Clinton got 49.2% of the vote ... almost 50%. Clinton won 379 Electoral College votes. Perot got 0 ECVs. Even if you gave every single vote that Perot got to Dole, Clinton still got more votes. Without Perot, I guarantee Clinton is over 50% and probably does a little better than Obama did in 2008.

Dole was heavily damaged by Buchanan, Forbes, etc in the primaries and was literally out of money in the summer of 1996. Clinton used his money and attacked Dole for being out of touch, anti-choice, too conservative, etc. Dole had to campaign in Indiana in the final week to save house seats instead of real battleground states.

You could make an argument that Perot took votes away from Bush Sr in 1992 but I would say that the 1992 election was a change election and Bush Sr. was going to lose regardless.

And I'd also argue that no one stole any votes. If you want a vote, then get out their earn it or campaign for it. Republicans don't deserve to get every not-democrat vote just for not being a democrat. The same goes for Democrats whining about Nader or whatever. Heaven forbid some one vote for a third party candidate instead of the turds and douches, those votes belong to the turd and douche parties by divine right! And fuck Romney for whining and being butthurt over an election from 20 years ago he wasn't even involved in.

 

[Stayfr0sty]

Ross Perot> Bush Sr.

 

[monovillage]

He's right, without Perot in the 3 way race, Bush Sr. would have won re-election in '92. Clinton won with about 43% of the vote iirc.

 

[ky54]

It's no different than the blithering idiots who say Nader caused Gore to lose.

 

[fskimospy]

He's right, without Perot in the 3 way race, Bush Sr. would have won re-election in '92. Clinton won with about 43% of the vote iirc.

This is not correct. Exit polls clearly showed that Perot voters were split between the two candidates, in many cases actually favoring Clinton over Bush.

There have been studies done on this. Not a single one that I am aware of came to the conclusion that Bush would have won in 92 without Perot. What are you basing this on?

 

[Anarchist420]

What are you basing this on?

He's basing it on being a Republican Party shill. I have no idea why anyone in their right mind could think Perot took more votes from Bush 41 since Perot's platform was to the left of Clinton's.

 

[monovillage]

This is not correct. Exit polls clearly showed that Perot voters were split between the two candidates, in many cases actually favoring Clinton over Bush.

There have been studies done on this. Not a single one that I am aware of came to the conclusion that Bush would have won in 92 without Perot. What are you basing this on?

It's my opinion that if Perot had not been in the election, including the run up to the election, that most of the Perot voters would have been for Bush. That because of the fracturing of a 3rd party run it cost Bush Sr. the election.

 

[Tom]

This was debated heavily in 1996, Ross Perot siphoned voters away from Dole, causing Clinton to win.

AT P&N has short memories though. Most online communities do.

People voting for Clinton caused Clinton to win.

Dole lost because he didn't get enough votes. If enough people wanted him to be President then he would have won.

It isn't complex.

 

[fskimospy]

It's my opinion that if Perot had not been in the election, including the run up to the election, that most of the Perot voters would have been for Bush. That because of the fracturing of a 3rd party run it cost Bush Sr. the election.

But what I'm telling you is that the actual exit polls from the 1992 election showed that Perot voters actually favored Clinton over Bush by a tiny margin (38% to 37%). That implies that if anything Clinton's margin of victory would have been slightly larger without Perot, but certainly not a loss instead of a win.

What source of data are you using that says otherwise?

 

[monovillage]

But what I'm telling you is that the actual exit polls from the 1992 election showed that Perot voters actually favored Clinton over Bush by a tiny margin (38% to 37%). That implies that if anything Clinton's margin of victory would have been slightly larger without Perot, but certainly not a loss instead of a win.

What source of data are you using that says otherwise?

What multiple exit polls that you've cited twice now?

 

[NeoV]

again - don't let facts get in the way of the GOP side of the discussion

ASSOCIATED PRESS (11/4/92): Exit polls suggest Ross Perot hurt George Bush and Bill Clinton about equally.
The Voter Research and Surveys poll, a joint project of the four major television networks, found 38 percent of Perot voters would have voted for Clinton and 37 percent would have voted for Bush if Perot had not been on the ballot. Fifteen percent said they would not have voted, and 6 percent listed other candidates.

 

[Ninjahedge]

mono, ask nicely.

If this is the case, then it is very arguable that it would have helped Clinton...

The ONLY thing that can be said is NOT about him taking votes, but bringing tough questions about the budget and other concerns that Clinton was more willing to address, or at least make promises about that he would not keep (I am not expressing hate for the Bill Shill, just a political reality).

I think the argument needs to be redressed in that if Perot had not stirred this dissent then people would have voted more conservatively and that MAY have been enough to tip it in Bush's favor.

Crying about "split vote" is just to get Santorum off the pulpit.

 

[monovillage]

mono, ask nicely.

If this is the case, then it is very arguable that it would have helped Clinton...

The ONLY thing that can be said is NOT about him taking votes, but bringing tough questions about the budget and other concerns that Clinton was more willing to address, or at least make promises about that he would not keep (I am not expressing hate for the Bill Shill, just a political reality).

I think the argument needs to be redressed in that if Perot had not stirred this dissent then people would have voted more conservatively and that MAY have been enough to tip it in Bush's favor.

Crying about "split vote" is just to get Santorum off the pulpit.

OK, Please Mr. Eskimospy you have twice cited exit polls in the discussion but didn't link them. Would you pretty, pretty please with sugar on top provide links to information you cite?

Was that better ninja?

 

[chucky2]

There are a quite a lot of Perot bumper stickers on trucks still driving around Indiana, I don't think (and in a few cases know as I know the people personally) that these are the type of people who would be voting Clinton.

Maybe the exit polls for other states were reversed, but not where I've seen it.

Chuck

 

[FerrelGeek]

I suspect Romney was talking about the Bush/Clinton race in 1992. At the time I thought Perot did indeed give the election to Clinton.

This

Bob Dole defeated Bob Dole, because Bob Dole should have realized that his time had passed and Bob Dole should have stepped asside. But Bob Dole was a typical republican and held fast that it was Bob Dole's rightful turn.