Ross Perot 1992 - Balancing the Budget & Reforming Government

[the other mike]

This gives us an accurate analysis of where we were less than 30 years ago compared with how deep of a hole we are in now at over $22 trillion in debt along with a trillion dollar deficit.

One of several Ross Perot Infomercials that ran during the 1992 General Election campaign.

 

[whitehall]

He got Bill Clinton elected.

 

[Decus]

He was one of the rare candidates that made clear the steps he would take if elected. Sadly we seem to prefer vague promises like "Hope and Change".

Go figure.

.

 

[the other mike]

He got Bill Clinton elected.

That's highly debatable as is Nader getting Bush elected in 2000.

The Economy and ‘Read My Lips,’ Not Ross Perot, Cost President Bush His 1992 Re-Election

 

[TNHarley]

"4 trillion in debt"
I almost threw up

 

[Oddball]

He got Bill Clinton elected.

You can't say that...I would have never voted for Bush after he lied about taxes and got us into war...You have no idea what Perot voters would or wouldn't have done.

 

[SandSquid]

He got Bill Clinton elected.

You can't say that...I would have never voted for Bush after he lied about taxes and got us into war...You have no idea what Perot voters would or wouldn't have done.

It is interesting. The War I had no issues with stepping in. Iraq had gained control of the gulf, and with that, 65% of the worlds known oil supply.

As for the taxes, I find that odd that when a Democrat controlled congress wrote new tax laws raising taxes, and Bush finally agreed to them after negotiating many of them down, people wanted that party which pushed for raising taxes in office.

As for Perot, I remember two things. 1. Stockdale scared me. 2. Perot running our military scared me.

If you want to see why the deficit keeps growing, look at Bush and Perot. One has to run as an independent to push that hope, and it's because most Americans will never vote for major tax increases, or gov't rollbacks on spending to balance a budget.

That said, I agree Perot didn't cost Bush. In 1991 before Dems even had a candidate, Bush in polls was running even with ANYONE that would come from the Dems. Exit polls showed Perot drew from Bush/Clinton votes nearly equally, and Bush would have needed a 20% edge in Perot voters to win. And the states where Perot drew the hardest from Bush (Texas and Florida), Bush won all the Electoral votes there anyways.

In the Governor's races, Perot's voters cast 18% of their ballots for the Republican candidates; 56% of their ballots for Democratic candidates, 17% for independent candidates, and 8% did not bother to vote for Governor.

In the Senate races, Perot's supporters voted 27% for the Republican candidates, 24% for the Democratic candidates, 23% for the independent candidates, and 24% skipped the Senate races entirely. (This does not include states that did not have Senate races.)

In the House races, Perot's voters cast 22% of their ballots for Republican candidates, 19% for Democratic candidates, 18% for independent candidates, and 40% did not vote in House races.

Unless Bush was by far the most beloved Republican running for office (hint, he wasn't), he wouldn't have gotten anywhere near the votes needed without Perot

 

[gipper]

He got Bill Clinton elected.

Yeah not great, but far better than re-electing that CIA elitist jackass Poppy Bush.

 

[the other mike]

He got Bill Clinton elected.

You can't say that...I would have never voted for Bush after he lied about taxes and got us into war...You have no idea what Perot voters would or wouldn't have done.

It is interesting. The War I had no issues with stepping in. Iraq had gained control of the gulf, and with that, 65% of the worlds known oil supply.

As for the taxes, I find that odd that when a Democrat controlled congress wrote new tax laws raising taxes, and Bush finally agreed to them after negotiating many of them down, people wanted that party which pushed for raising taxes in office.

As for Perot, I remember two things. 1. Stockdale scared me. 2. Perot running our military scared me.

If you want to see why the deficit keeps growing, look at Bush and Perot. One has to run as an independent to push that hope, and it's because most Americans will never vote for major tax increases, or gov't rollbacks on spending to balance a budget.

That said, I agree Perot didn't cost Bush. In 1991 before Dems even had a candidate, Bush in polls was running even with ANYONE that would come from the Dems. Exit polls showed Perot drew from Bush/Clinton votes nearly equally, and Bush would have needed a 20% edge in Perot voters to win. And the states where Perot drew the hardest from Bush (Texas and Florida), Bush won all the Electoral votes there anyways.

In the Governor's races, Perot's voters cast 18% of their ballots for the Republican candidates; 56% of their ballots for Democratic candidates, 17% for independent candidates, and 8% did not bother to vote for Governor.

In the Senate races, Perot's supporters voted 27% for the Republican candidates, 24% for the Democratic candidates, 23% for the independent candidates, and 24% skipped the Senate races entirely. (This does not include states that did not have Senate races.)

In the House races, Perot's voters cast 22% of their ballots for Republican candidates, 19% for Democratic candidates, 18% for independent candidates, and 40% did not vote in House races.

Unless Bush was by far the most beloved Republican running for office (hint, he wasn't), he wouldn't have gotten anywhere near the votes needed without Perot

Perot proposed a 75% tax on the top 18%.....I thought that's what scared a lot of folks.