Threatening to Vote Thrid Pary?

I would too.

Bush Sr. was doing quite well until Perot came along and took part of his votes away. Otherwise, I think he would have beat Clinton.

 

Again, I would caution these statements about Romney. We simply do not know if he has really changed his position or is merely being pragmatic. It could be either. Guiliani has been clear about where he stands as a pro-abortion. Romney on the other hand has been pretty clear about where he stands. Many before Romney have changed their minds. So I would urge caution about this type of condemnation of a man which goes against what he is saying without proof.

 

Everything is possible. A conversion from pro abortion to pro life at the time of leaving office in Massachussetts to running for President is possible. It is also possible that grasshoppers will learn to use machine guns so the birds won't eat them.

 

No, yes, and no.

Don't you think we should be straightforward about the extent of our knowledge? As opposed to what we might believe about someone? I do.

 

If I recall correctly, in the spring of 1992 Perot was whipping both Bush and Clinton.

Besides, in my political paradigm I don't accept the argument that anyone other than a Democrat or a Republican candidate is taking votes away from the Democrat or Republican candidate. We do not have only two candidates on the ballot by law in these United States. Maybe this is because I don't approach any election thinking from the get go that I am going to be limited in my voting to a Democrat or a Republican.

 

Where is the evidence to support this?

 

To support what?

 

The evidence you said you was going to find to show that Perot did not give the election to Clinton.

He got almost 19% of the popular vote that year. How did that not swing things?

 

Like I told TomVols I will have to try to find it again. It was earlier this year or last year that this came up before and I didn't bookmark it.

You are assuming that the 19% would have voted for either Clinton or Bush if Perot had not been in the race. Furthermore, you seem to be assuming that Bush would have gotten more of the the 19% than Clinton would have to such an extent that Bush would have won. Your assumption is flawed. However, since you seem to favor the Republican Party I understand why you would automatically think that way.

For the record, I voted for Howard Phillips of the U.S. Taxpayers Party(now the Constitution Party). And it was certainly not a vote "taken away" from George H.W. Bush whom I didn't vote for in 1988 either(I wrote in Jack Kemp).

I am curious. Is the Republican Party your default position for your vote in a kneejerk reaction to every election?

 

I am a registered republican, but I have voted for candidates of both parties.

I did a little research of my own from 1992.

Bill Clinton 44,909,806 votes 43.0%

George Bush 39,104,550 votes 37.4%

Ross Perot 19,743,821 votes 18.9%

17 states that year were relatively close with 11 of them going to Clinton.

1. Georgia, 0.59%
2. North Carolina, 0.79%
3. New Hampshire, 1.22%
4. Ohio, 1.83%
5. Florida, 1.89%
6. Arizona, 1.95%
7. New Jersey, 2.37%
8. Montana, 2.51%
9. Nevada, 2.63%
10. Kentucky, 3.21%
11. Texas, 3.48%
12. South Dakota, 3.52%
13. Colorado, 4.26%
14. Wisconsin, 4.35%
15. Virginia, 4.38%
16. Louisiana, 4.61%
17. Tennessee, 4.65%

You are telling me that did not swing things at all to Clinton?? I find that hard to believe. It seems to me that the Republican vote was split in many cases thus giving more votes to Clinton.

 

When I have some time I will try to find the research about this that I posted when this issue was discussed before.

The bottom line is that George H.W. Bush cost himself re-election by raising taxes and angering the conservative/libertarian base in the Republican Party during his first term. That certainly wasn't Perot's doing regardless of how one analyzes the vote tally.

 

1968 is another good example of an election almost thrown by a third party. Humphrey almost beat Nixon because of the southern states Wallace carried, plus the votes Nixon would have gotten in other states if not for Wallace. This is actually a more glaring example than 1992, as Wallace actually won electoral votes.
http://presidentelect.org/e1968.html

 

If one is going to discuss 1968 limited by a the two-party paradigm then one would have to state that Wallace could have cost Humphrey the election. The states that Wallace carried would very likely have gone for Humphrey back in 1968 during the era of the Solid Democratic South.

 

My idea is supported by the election of 1964 and 1972, the elections immediately before and after 1968. Look at what party carried the South.

http://presidentelect.org/e1964.html

http://presidentelect.org/e1972.html

Besides that, who was Wallace closer to politically, Nixon or Humphrey?

 

Then again, look at 1976(http://presidentelect.org/e1976.html). The realignment did not start to hit full force until starting with 1980.

Regardless, I don't accept the premise that the Democratic and Republican Parties start off with 100% of the vote and that any deviation from that means that one of those two parties lost a vote.

But even if one wants to argue that it is irrelevant in reality. There is nothing sinful, or even wrong, with voting for someone other than a Democrat or a Republican, regardless of the consequences.

I would prefer that 100% of the voters cast their ballot based on who they want to win instead of who they want to keep from winning.

 

I agree with that point. If Giuliani or Romney is nominated, I will be voting third party. As far as the other Republican candidates, except for Ron Paul, I haven't decided what I would do.

 

Below is the analysis of Perot's impact on the 1992 and 1996 elections that I posted when this was discussed months ago on this board.

The bottom line(using a two party paradigm) is that at most in 1992 that Perot cost Bush the electoral votes of Montana, North Carolina, Colorado and Georgia, while costing Clinton the electoral votes of Florida and Arizona. Therefore, Bush lost a net of only 5 electoral votes to the Perot candidacy. Since Bush needed 102 more electoral votes to win, Perot did not cost Bush the victory.

www.leinsdorf.com/perot.htm