• We are currently performing site maintenance, parts of civfanatics are currently offline, but will come back online in the coming days. For more updates please see here.

Ross Perot Does Not Like Deficits

Cutlass

The Man Who Wasn't There.
Joined
Jan 13, 2008
Messages
48,256
Location
US of A
Why this web site now? Because we are running out of time.

The American people must wake up and face the reality that promises made in the past will soon bankrupt this nation. These problems are explained in an easy-to-understand chart presentation discussed further at the bottom of this page. Comments to the charts and other material described to the right are encouraged.

http://perotcharts.com/

So he made a bunch of charts to get his point across. :p Just like when he was running for president.

Do you like constant deficits? :crazyeye:
 
I can't believe he's still alive. I hadn't heard anything from him in what seems like about a decade.

"Can I finish?"
 
Ross Perot better not run or he will be in for a hell of a beating along with his buddy Nader.
 
Err, His first run is pretty much why Clinton got his first term.
Actually not. Clinton would have still won the electoral vote even if you gave Bush all the Perot votes in the 10 closest states that Clinton won.

Switching GA, NH, OH, NJ, MT, NV, KY, CO, WI, and LA from Clinton to Bush would have still meant that Clinton would have won 274-264. Giving Bush all these states is very generous since exit polls indicated that Perot voters were fairly evenly split between would've voted Bush, would've voted Clinton, and would've stayed home.
 
Actually not. Clinton would have still won the electoral vote even if you gave Bush all the Perot votes in the 10 closest states that Clinton won.
But not all the perot votes. ;)
 
Actually not. Clinton would have still won the electoral vote even if you gave Bush all the Perot votes in the 10 closest states that Clinton won.

Switching GA, NH, OH, NJ, MT, NV, KY, CO, WI, and LA from Clinton to Bush would have still meant that Clinton would have won 274-264. Giving Bush all these states is very generous since exit polls indicated that Perot voters were fairly evenly split between would've voted Bush, would've voted Clinton, and would've stayed home.

Perhaps had Ross Perot exited the race soon before the election. However, Ross Perot stirred up discontent amongst many fiscal conservatives early on, who otherwise would have likely voted for Bush over Clinton in larger numbers. Thus, electoral playbooking doesn't really work in this case.

Remember, the 1992 election wasn't about deficits until Ross Perot made it about deficits. People then took notice.

He was a spoiler. And a damn good one...

~Chris
 
Perhaps had Ross Perot exited the race soon before the election. However, Ross Perot stirred up discontent amongst many fiscal conservatives early on, who otherwise would have likely voted for Bush over Clinton in larger numbers. Thus, electoral playbooking doesn't really work in this case.

Remember, the 1992 election wasn't about deficits until Ross Perot made it about deficits. People then took notice.

He was a spoiler. And a damn good one...

~Chris

Bush was a pretty effective self-spoiler: "Read my lips, no new taxes" sounds good until you raise taxes. Plus we were coming out of the (relatively mild) 90-91 recession where white collar workers, for the first time in significant numbers, were introduced to the concept of corporate downsizing. Bush was working with a thinner margin on domestic issues and foreign policy, where he would have been strong, was basically off the table. Being fascinated with a grocery checkout scanner also didn't help his cause.
 
Back
Top Bottom