titan said:

---

Quote:

---

Liked a lot about Perot but when he pulled his drop out stunt and then came back it was clear he didn't care about winning (as well as naming Stockton his VP). He only wanted to take down Bush and he didn't care that Clinton would cause so much damage. If Perot really wanted to do what he said he was wanting to do that would have been great but he literally dropped out just as he was taking the lead in polling and made up some weird excuse about his family.

Bush was definitely a Globalist but he was also an America First Globalist. He wanted the US to run the world and he was setting it up for that to happen. Would it have been all wine and roses? Nope, but he sure as hell would have been the better option than Clinton.

---

That is absolutely true about Bush41. His whole globalist approach seemed more a modification of "America leading the world" and in that sense America First. What was the term they used for the plans ahead--"full spectrum" 21st C was supposed to be a good century.

Bush Sr's main problem is by no measure did he actually RUN for office. It was very Boehner'ish in tone (not the 2010 Boehner) and just no energy. In fact, nothing would have been easier than to simply work in aspects of Perot's message into his own speeches. But nada. Nothing. Maybe that did cost him votes that would have voted for him otherwise. I can't say. All of those I know (including myself) who found Perot's message and the fact not a politician inspiring in mid-1992 were turned off flat by his drop out and then jumping back in Oct 1992. That is why inclined to believe Eric's take that Perot is not why he lost.

But maybe that is wrong-- maybe enough Bush votes went to Perot even in November, but after such antics that would really surprise. Never voteds or prior interested, going for Perot like Trump, that's different. But that's technically not taking votes from Bush.

---

Bush definitely took his foot off the gas and it cost him. He had 90% approval ratings after the Gulf War and he basically acted like he had done his job so he was entitled to re-election. He did almost nothing with that political capital in terms of pushing an agenda and it faded away. He had virtually no real messaging or plan compared to what Clinton was pushing, much less Perot. People knew he was great on foreign policy but with the Cold War over and the Gulf War a victory there just wasn't any pressing foreign policy concern. The press certainly wasn't going to help him. Younger voters in my generation especially were attracted to something new.

The other factor that can't be underestimated is the loss of Lee A****er to cancer. A****er was his attack dog and aggressive campaign strategist to him and to Reagan. Without him there was no bulldog to push him. For instance A****er is the one who pushed the ad against Dukakis in the tank that made him a national joke.

Held nose and voted.
The SNL skits on this were comic gold.
Admiral Stockdale's debate performance was one for the ages.
The Republican convention was in Houston.
It might have been Reagan's last speech at a convention.
It was a bucket list item to be there live and listen to him.

Bush. Perot was POS. He screwed Texas up when he got into Tx Politics in the 80's. His company got the contract to grade all the Educational tests the State started back then. He did not care about Public Education, his kids went to private schools. he was all about the money.

murphyag said:

---

I voted Perot. Country would be in much better shape now if he'd won. Back then, he seemed to be the only one to understand the risks of NAFTA and what the end result would be of having so much our manufacturing leave U.S. soil.

---

Perot's company EDS was one of the pioneers of outsourcing. He, of all people, should have known the dangers of NAFTA because his company was already doing it.

aggie93 said:

---

titan said:

---

Quote:

---

Liked a lot about Perot but when he pulled his drop out stunt and then came back it was clear he didn't care about winning (as well as naming Stockton his VP). He only wanted to take down Bush and he didn't care that Clinton would cause so much damage. If Perot really wanted to do what he said he was wanting to do that would have been great but he literally dropped out just as he was taking the lead in polling and made up some weird excuse about his family.

Bush was definitely a Globalist but he was also an America First Globalist. He wanted the US to run the world and he was setting it up for that to happen. Would it have been all wine and roses? Nope, but he sure as hell would have been the better option than Clinton.

---

That is absolutely true about Bush41. His whole globalist approach seemed more a modification of "America leading the world" and in that sense America First. What was the term they used for the plans ahead--"full spectrum" 21st C was supposed to be a good century.

Bush Sr's main problem is by no measure did he actually RUN for office. It was very Boehner'ish in tone (not the 2010 Boehner) and just no energy. In fact, nothing would have been easier than to simply work in aspects of Perot's message into his own speeches. But nada. Nothing. Maybe that did cost him votes that would have voted for him otherwise. I can't say. All of those I know (including myself) who found Perot's message and the fact not a politician inspiring in mid-1992 were turned off flat by his drop out and then jumping back in Oct 1992. That is why inclined to believe Eric's take that Perot is not why he lost.

But maybe that is wrong-- maybe enough Bush votes went to Perot even in November, but after such antics that would really surprise. Never voteds or prior interested, going for Perot like Trump, that's different. But that's technically not taking votes from Bush.

---

Bush definitely took his foot off the gas and it cost him. He had 90% approval ratings after the Gulf War and he basically acted like he had done his job so he was entitled to re-election. He did almost nothing with that political capital in terms of pushing an agenda and it faded away. He had virtually no real messaging or plan compared to what Clinton was pushing, much less Perot. People knew he was great on foreign policy but with the Cold War over and the Gulf War a victory there just wasn't any pressing foreign policy concern. The press certainly wasn't going to help him. Younger voters in my generation especially were attracted to something new.

The other factor that can't be underestimated is the loss of Lee A****er to cancer. A****er was his attack dog and aggressive campaign strategist to him and to Reagan. Without him there was no bulldog to push him. For instance A****er is the one who pushed the ad against Dukakis in the tank that made him a national joke.

---

My boss in 1992 said, "Bush didn't act like he wanted to win."

Bush. Great man, solid foreign policy leadership but never had much interest in taking hold of domestic policy.

Quote:

---

Bush definitely took his foot off the gas and it cost him. He had 90% approval ratings after the Gulf War and he basically acted like he had done his job so he was entitled to re-election. He did almost nothing with that political capital in terms of pushing an agenda and it faded away. He had virtually no real messaging or plan compared to what Clinton was pushing, much less Perot. People knew he was great on foreign policy but with the Cold War over and the Gulf War a victory there just wasn't any pressing foreign policy concern. The press certainly wasn't going to help him. Younger voters in my generation especially were attracted to something new

---

Yes. You know who Bush41's campaign reminds of? Ted Cruz's 2018 Senatorial run. Just was coasting and nearly got into trouble with Beto. Fortunately dodged that bullet. Sure he has learned his lesson and besides, this time around Beto can be painted as micro-Biden ---it would be putting Biden in direct charge of Texas.

Quote:

---

The other factor that can't be underestimated is the loss of Lee A****er to cancer. A****er was his attack dog and aggressive campaign strategist to him and to Reagan. Without him there was no bulldog to push him. For instance A****er is the one who pushed the ad against Dukakis in the tank that made him a national joke.

---

I wonder why the name at water is being censored? You bring up a good point. Especially the Dukakis example---that would never have occurred to Bush himself.

murphyag said:

---

I voted Perot. Country would be in much better shape now if he'd won. Back then, he seemed to be the only one to understand the risks of NAFTA and what the end result would be of having so much our manufacturing leave U.S. soil.

---

Ok, but Perot had no intention of winning and if you couldn't see that you were a naive fool. Perot only really cared about Bush losing because he had a personal grudge against him going back to Bush's CIA days.

Think twit with an "a" is what is censored.

regrettably, I did not vote. Bush pissed me off so bad I couldn't vote for him. wanted to vote for Perot but knew he didn't have a chance and the swamp wouldn't let him do anything significant. Ignored Reagans advice and regretted it for the next 8 years.........

Odd. Aggie93's original post did not have that--his name is spelled right. Weird how it can read it more than one way.

That was also my first time eligible to vote. I voted Bush.

StandUpforAmerica said:

---

I voted for Bush. Even at that young age I realized that a vote for Perot was a wasted vote (and an indirect vote for Clinton).

---

This. Perot was personally pissed at Bush and just decided to wreck the election. He did tap into a vein of frustration that Trump successfully mined, but that was never going to be enough to win the election in a 3 way race, and he clearly pulled more votes from the right than from the left, handing the election to Clinton.

Voted for Bush, was swayed a little by Perot's message, but ultimately felt a vote for Perot was a vote for Clinton.

Dana Carvey...I mean Perot.

Bush/Quayle was such a milquetoast ticket. If the Dems had nominated anyone better than Dukakis, don't think they would have won in 1988.

Perot. The system needed a shock and the old guard Bush family and the old guard Gore family symbolized domination of their respective parties whereas Ross Perot was pragmatic about borders, the economy and foresaw negative effects of NAFTA.

aggiehawg said:

---

Bush/Quayle was such a milquetoast ticket. If the Dems had nominated anyone better than Dukakis, don't think they would have won in 1988.

---

VP is close to meaningless (see Kamala Harris). Bush was running as, essentially, Reagan's 3rd term. I can't think of anyone the Democrats would have run in '88 that was likely going to beat Bush in that setting. Contrast Bush (the worst thing most people said about him was that he was wishy washy compared to Reagan) in that position in '88 to Hillary (who was loathed and despised by a majority of the population), who was essentially trying to do the same thing in 2016. Bush was running on a strong legacy, with relatively high favorability. He was a formidable candidate in that environment.

Perot. I didn't think he had a chance to win and told a mentor of mine that I didn't want to waste my vote but I really felt Perot was the best candidate. He told me the only wasted vote was the one not cast so I pulled the lever for Perot. All these years later and with hopefully more wisdom I'd still vote the same way. If we don't take a chance on someone new and keep voting for the lesser of two evils we're going to stay stuck with the same old crap we can't stand.

twk said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Bush/Quayle was such a milquetoast ticket. If the Dems had nominated anyone better than Dukakis, don't think they would have won in 1988.

---

VP is close to meaningless (see Kamala Harris). Bush was running as, essentially, Reagan's 3rd term. I can't think of anyone the Democrats would have run in '88 that was likely going to beat Bush in that setting. Contrast Bush (the worst thing most people said about him was that he was wishy washy compared to Reagan) in that position in '88 to Hillary (who was loathed and despised by a majority of the population), who was essentially trying to do the same thing in 2016. Bush was running on a strong legacy, with relatively high favorability. He was a formidable candidate in that environment.

---

If Gary Hart had not imploded I think he could have won.

I was 19 in 1992 and it was my first presidential election to vote in. Perot was very appealing, but I didn't want Clinton to win so I voted for Bush. Didn't help, obviously.

It was also the only time in my life I voted for a Democrat for anything. Voted for John Montford, Texas Senate. That was back when you had good and decent Democrats.

Like I said, it was the one and only time I did, and haven't since.

Gone Camping said:

---

Perot. I didn't think he had a chance to win and told a mentor of mine that I didn't want to waste my vote but I really felt Perot was the best candidate. He told me the only wasted vote was the one not cast so I pulled the lever for Perot. All these years later and with hopefully more wisdom I'd still vote the same way. If we don't take a chance on someone new and keep voting for the lesser of two evils we're going to stay stuck with the same old crap we can't stand.

---

You wasted your vote because it was a 3 way race. There are a lot of similarities between Perot and Trump, but Trump did it the right way and won the Republican nomination, so it was a head to head choice between him and Hillary. If he'd been a 3rd party candidate, instead, like Perot, he would have handed the race to Hillary.

Quote:

---

If Gary Hart had not imploded I think he could have won.

---

Gary Hart might have done better than Dukakis if he'd been able to keep his pants on, but I don't think he would have won that race. I think Bush would have been able to paint him as the liberal that he really was. Bush's victory was as much a rejection of the Democratic Party as it was a rejection of Dukakis.

Voted for Bush, simply because I knew Bill would cheat on this country like he did the other thing he hated in life...Hillary.

Jen Flowers' Penthouse pictorial was quite nice, though.

So, basically I voted for a war monger over a cheater (and Perot the snake oil salesman), and then went all moral and looked at a nudie mag.

In hindsight, maybe Perot should've been my pick.

Voted for '41'.
Never voted for a 'D', and never will.
Would seriously consider voting 'L'. But, don't see that being an option in my lifetime (63 y/o).

twk said:

---

Quote:

---

If Gary Hart had not imploded I think he could have won.

---

Gary Hart might have done better than Dukakis if he'd been able to keep his pants on, but I don't think he would have won that race. I think Bush would have been able to paint him as the liberal that he really was. Bush's victory was as much a rejection of the Democratic Party as it was a rejection of Dukakis.

---

You could be right in hindsight but back to my original point about Bush and Quayle not being an exciting ticket, Hart had a ton of excitement and momentum until the Monkey Business happened.

Bush

For the youngsters:

twk said:

---

For the youngsters:

---

What became of the claims in recent years that the Donna Rice affairs was a setup by the Bush campaign? I seem to recall Hart did everything but dispute he did something unfaithful.

Exactly. That why I voted for Bush I. My protest was voting for Buchanan in the GOP primary.

Quote:

---

What became of the claims in recent years that the Donna Rice affairs was a setup by the Bush campaign? I seem to recall Hart did everything but dispute he did something unfaithful.

---

Honestly, I hadn't heard that (about Bush setting him up).

Bush in 92, Perot in 96 cuz bob dole was super dull.

Voted for Buchannan as a protest in the primary, then voted for Bush in the general.

And that which he took, kept Bush out of the White House. Was it 17%? I'm working off of memory.

Buford T. Justice said:

---

And that which he took, kept Bush out of the White House. Was it 17%? I'm working off of memory.

---

Perot received 19,743,821 votes, the most ever received by a third party candidate, which accounted for 18.91% of the popular vote.