You KNOW It's Time To Drop Out of the Race WHEN...

[Uncensored2008]

The corrupt Clinton Machine brought in a spoiler - Ross Perot, in 1992, when Bill had literally zero chance of winning. His insane populist bullshit split the vote and pulled much of the independent block, who are swayed by slogans rather than substance.

Most Perot voters I know from 1992, including my Brother in Law, had no intention of voting for Bush. Fact is, when Perot was weaker in 1996 than 1992, more of his voters broke for Clinton than Dole.

Trump is another Clintonista working to get Hilliary elected against all odds.Trump will not get the GOP nomination, and will run third party to siphone off votes on behalf of the Clinton gang, whom he works for.

Guy, talk to some of your fellow right wingers on this site, people who normally agree with you. A lot of them are for Trump.

Lowest level since 2008? Dayum, what an accomplishment. And all this with less than half the number of people holding full time jobs!

Life's too short to try to correct all your math problems.

As usual, it isn't what you don't know that is the problem, it's that what you know is false;

{To be sure, the numbers do indeed suggest that Perot garnered his support primarily from Reagan/Bush voters from the 1980s. In 1984, the Republican share of the presidential vote was 59 percent. In 1988, it was 53 percent. In 1992, the combined Bush/Perot vote share was 56 percent. Democrats got 41 percent of the vote in 1984, 46 percent in 1988, and 43 percent in 1992. Bush won 51 percent of the vote in both Vermont and California in 1988. Bush and Perot collectively won 53 percent of the vote in both Vermont and California in 1992. Bush won 61 percent of the vote in Florida in 1988. Bush/Perot won 61 percent of the vote in Florida in 1992.}

Did Ross Perot Elect Bill Clinton? | Race 4 2016

 

[dannyboys]

yeah, no room for the more rational kind in the gop these days.

i kind of feel bad for jeb. he deserves more respect than most of the other gop candidates.

Jeb's problem was he never showed up for the dance.
That's no ones fault but his own.
His team wasn't able to see the winds of change in the direction of the country.
Thanks to Obama the country has become extremely polarized. Hence the old Socialist hippy attracting the next 'sixties' generation. And Trump the Capitalist warrior.
If I were in my twenties facing a lifetime of barely surviving working at 'McJobs' and someone like Sanders promised me he'd increase taxes to 90% I'd be asking how is that going to help create the businesses I need to work for to actually get ahead in life?
Or what about Trump who has decades of creating thousands of jobs from maids to CEOs. Trump promises to make America great again.
I'm in my twenties and I could REALLY use some of that 'GREATNESS" in my future.
That's why thinking millennials are going to vote for their future.......not a Socialist American 'hybrid-like' Russia run by a 74 year old.

 

[JoeB131]

Jeb's problem was he never showed up for the dance.
That's no ones fault but his own.
His team wasn't able to see the winds of change in the direction of the country.
Thanks to Obama the country has become extremely polarized. Hence the old Socialist hippy attracting the next 'sixties' generation. And Trump the Capitalist warrior.
If I were in my twenties facing a lifetime of barely surviving working at 'McJobs' and someone like Sanders promised me he'd increase taxes to 90% I'd be asking how is that going to help create the businesses I need to work for to actually get ahead in life?
Or what about Trump who has decades of creating thousands of jobs from maids to CEOs. Trump promises to make America great again.
I'm in my twenties and I could REALLY use some of that 'GREATNESS" in my future.
That's why thinking millennials are going to vote for their future.......not a Socialist American 'hybrid-like' Russia run by a 74 year old.

GUy, the fact that you are in your twenties and are a screaming Nazi fool is why you don't have much of a future. My guess is your interviews end the first time you drop the N-bomb.

Trump hasn't created any jobs. He goes into a community, promises the moon, gets a bunch of tax breaks, and then declares bankruptcy and someone else picks up the bill.

Fact is, WHEN we taxed the rich at 90%, under that dirty Communist, Dwight Eisenhower, we had the greatest prosperity in our history.

 

[JoeB131]

s usual, it isn't what you don't know that is the problem, it's that what you know is false;

{To be sure, the numbers do indeed suggest that Perot garnered his support primarily from Reagan/Bush voters from the 1980s. In 1984, the Republican share of the presidential vote was 59 percent. In 1988, it was 53 percent. In 1992, the combined Bush/Perot vote share was 56 percent. Democrats got 41 percent of the vote in 1984, 46 percent in 1988, and 43 percent in 1992. Bush won 51 percent of the vote in both Vermont and California in 1988. Bush and Perot collectively won 53 percent of the vote in both Vermont and California in 1992. Bush won 61 percent of the vote in Florida in 1988. Bush/Perot won 61 percent of the vote in Florida in 1992.}

but your whole Premise was that Perot's voters would have gone to Bush had Perot not been in the race.

The polling of the time puts the lie to that. During the period where Perot had suspended his campaign because Bush tried to disrupt his daughter's wedding, or something, Clinton was easily leading Bush in a two-man race.

Instead of recounting all of the details of the ’92 race here, I’ll simply refer you toone of my previous posts on the subject. If you want the Cliff’s Notes version it goes like this: (1) Economic anxiety was high, causing Bush’s poll numbers to drop to poisonous levels — by the fall of ’92 he was not an incumbent who, on paper, should have won reelection; (2) Not a single public opinion poll from the middle of July (when Perot dropped out the race) through the end of September (when Perot returned) gave Bush a lead over Clinton — not even in the immediate wake of the August ’92 GOP convention. In fact, Clinton’s average lead in this period was double-digits — and the race was not tightening at the time Perot jumped back in; (3) A comprehensive national exit poll found that Perot voters were divided almost evenly on their second choice and that Clinton — in a two-way race — would still have beaten Bush by 5.8 million votes (his actual margin was 5.3 million in initial ’92 tally). Here’s how the Washington Post summarized the exit poll:

Ross Perot’s presence on the 1992 presidential ballot did not change the outcome of the election, according to an analysis of the second choices of Perot supporters.

The analysis, based on exit polls conducted by Voter Research & Surveys (VRS) for the major news organizations, indicated that in Perot’s absence, only Ohio would have have shifted from the Clinton column to the Bush column. This would still have left Clinton with a healthy 349-to-189 majority in the electoral college.

The myths that just won’t die

 

[Uncensored2008]

s usual, it isn't what you don't know that is the problem, it's that what you know is false;

{To be sure, the numbers do indeed suggest that Perot garnered his support primarily from Reagan/Bush voters from the 1980s. In 1984, the Republican share of the presidential vote was 59 percent. In 1988, it was 53 percent. In 1992, the combined Bush/Perot vote share was 56 percent. Democrats got 41 percent of the vote in 1984, 46 percent in 1988, and 43 percent in 1992. Bush won 51 percent of the vote in both Vermont and California in 1988. Bush and Perot collectively won 53 percent of the vote in both Vermont and California in 1992. Bush won 61 percent of the vote in Florida in 1988. Bush/Perot won 61 percent of the vote in Florida in 1992.}

but your whole Premise was that Perot's voters would have gone to Bush had Perot not been in the race.

The polling of the time puts the lie to that. During the period where Perot had suspended his campaign because Bush tried to disrupt his daughter's wedding, or something, Clinton was easily leading Bush in a two-man race.

Instead of recounting all of the details of the ’92 race here, I’ll simply refer you toone of my previous posts on the subject. If you want the Cliff’s Notes version it goes like this: (1) Economic anxiety was high, causing Bush’s poll numbers to drop to poisonous levels — by the fall of ’92 he was not an incumbent who, on paper, should have won reelection; (2) Not a single public opinion poll from the middle of July (when Perot dropped out the race) through the end of September (when Perot returned) gave Bush a lead over Clinton — not even in the immediate wake of the August ’92 GOP convention. In fact, Clinton’s average lead in this period was double-digits — and the race was not tightening at the time Perot jumped back in; (3) A comprehensive national exit poll found that Perot voters were divided almost evenly on their second choice and that Clinton — in a two-way race — would still have beaten Bush by 5.8 million votes (his actual margin was 5.3 million in initial ’92 tally). Here’s how the Washington Post summarized the exit poll:

Ross Perot’s presence on the 1992 presidential ballot did not change the outcome of the election, according to an analysis of the second choices of Perot supporters.

The analysis, based on exit polls conducted by Voter Research & Surveys (VRS) for the major news organizations, indicated that in Perot’s absence, only Ohio would have have shifted from the Clinton column to the Bush column. This would still have left Clinton with a healthy 349-to-189 majority in the electoral college.

The myths that just won’t die

So mainstream source point out that Perot garnered virtually all of his support from the GOP and the Reagan cross voters, but leftist hate site Salon says "nuhn unh?"



What a fucking joke you are.

Here is a hint,

Salon
DailyKOS
Stormfront
Alternet
Democratic Underground
ThinkProgress

Not credible sources.

 

[JoeB131]

So mainstream source point out that Perot garnered virtually all of his support from the GOP and the Reagan cross voters, but leftist hate site Salon says "nuhn unh?"

Salon cited actually polling at the time.

By your logic, I won't vote for the Democrat in 2016, because I voted for Republicans in every race between 1980 to 2008.

But the fact is, I voted for Obama in 2012 and will probably vote for Hillary in 2016.

What were people thinking in 1992. And in 1992, no poll with or without Perot in it had Bush ahead, not even after the GOP convention, when even the most pathetic candidate gets a bounce.

 

[Katzndogz]

You won't get a chance to vote for Hillary.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The sad thing about Jeb is that hes' vastly more qualified than anyone else the GOP has.

But his name is Bush. And even Republicans have to tacitly admit that the Bush years were a fucking disaster. What they can't admit - yet - is the Bush policies were a disaster. They are taking the same shit and putting it into a shiny new package.

They're taking the same shit and injecting a shit ton of roids into it and selling it all wrapped up in a little bow. (Cruz!)

Long depression 1894 = caused by deregulations
Great depression 1929 = caused by deregulations and small government
2008 great recession = caused by deregulations and small government

Loserteriansim has a proud and sickening history of failure!

Can you make a post without using that stupid made-up word that you cannot even spell correctly?

 

[JoeB131]

You won't get a chance to vote for Hillary.

i think you are delusional. Hillary will be the Democratic Nominee.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Salon cited actually polling at the time.

By your logic, I won't vote for the Democrat in 2016, because I voted for Republicans in every race between 1980 to 2008.

But the fact is, I voted for Obama in 2012 and will probably vote for Hillary in 2016.

What were people thinking in 1992. And in 1992, no poll with or without Perot in it had Bush ahead, not even after the GOP convention, when even the most pathetic candidate gets a bounce.

Solon is a radical left hack site, they have no credibility - nor do you.

 

[Katzndogz]

You won't get a chance to vote for Hillary.

i think you are delusional. Hillary will be the Democratic Nominee.

While I certainly hope so, her prospects are incredibly dim right now. That's why the DNC wants to drag out Biden or Bloomberg.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You won't get a chance to vote for Hillary.

i think you are delusional. Hillary will be the Democratic Nominee.

BWAHAHAHAHAAAAAA

Famous last words..

 

[JoeB131]

Salon cited actually polling at the time.

By your logic, I won't vote for the Democrat in 2016, because I voted for Republicans in every race between 1980 to 2008.

But the fact is, I voted for Obama in 2012 and will probably vote for Hillary in 2016.

What were people thinking in 1992. And in 1992, no poll with or without Perot in it had Bush ahead, not even after the GOP convention, when even the most pathetic candidate gets a bounce.

Solon is a radical left hack site, they have no credibility - nor do you.

duly noted you could not find a poll showing Bush leading the race during 1992.

I'm not sure why you are continuing to bring attention to your inability to make an argument by repeating it.

 

[JoeB131]

While I certainly hope so, her prospects are incredibly dim right now. That's why the DNC wants to drag out Biden or Bloomberg.

Why would they drag out Bloomberg, he's not even a Democrat.

I think you need to worry about your own side and not theirs. You guys just got hijacked by Reality TV.