Clinton & RP (Ross Perot) Part 2

S

SamHouston

New member
Many of us old enough to remember voted in 1992 for a strong independent candidate running as a 3rd party named Ross Perot. Ross took many of the conservative vote that would have gone to GB #1 which caused the orginal Clinton to win the election.

Ron Paul has a great platform and attracts a fair amount of voters, could he pull enough votes for history to repeat itself ? Is it possible the Democratic machine has helped encourage or backed off Ron Paul to put their candidate in the White House ?
 
Last edited:
why not drag Ross back out and have him push Ron for an independent run or simply give him the boost he needs in the R race :) haha
 
It was '92, not '94.

If Perot had not run in '92 there is a strong case to be made that Clinton would not have been elected, thus no AWB, none of this Hilary nonsense, etc. With any luck he would have faded into the obscurity from wence he came.

Right now America is a two-party system, sometimes it sucks, but you have to play ball. Third party canidates cost votes for one side or the other. The whole thing is counter-productive. If a canidate truly belives in his message, he will not give the election to someone who is the antithesis of everything he belives. That is of course if he cares more about his message and less about his own hubris.

For a laugh, here is a sencario for you:RP(the second) renegs on his promise not to run. Of course his supporters will be okay with that since it is only the first promise he has ever broken compared to the vast many that other canidates in history have broken, and vote for him rather than one of the two major parties(you can read between the lines and figure out for yourself which one would lose the majority). Close election, Hilary wins. Bans guns, ammo, gun websites. Develops technology to read the peoples minds and bans thinking about guns(since this is a gun website I will limit speculation about the depths of her trashing our rights to the Second Amendmant). Twelve years after Hilary's inaguration Chealse runs for President because "her whole life has prepared her for the Presidency".

Just an amusing "what if" playing on the fact that history repeats itself to lighten up the atmoshpere.
 
1. If Bush the elder had held to his supposed conservative principles, Perot would not have been so attractive. Without the "Read my lips" fiasco, he probably would have been re-elected, with or without Perot.
2. Last I heard him say, Paul said that he had no intention of running as independant. I don't know that he has stated unequivocally that he will not run.
3. Most, if not all, of the votes he would get as an indy, would NEVER have gone to the Republican nominee anyway.

Please take note that it is the abandoning of principles that opens the door for an independant alternative to the Republican candidate.
 
Last edited:
3. Most, if not all, of the votes he would get as an indy, would NEVER go to one of the Republican nominee.
Click to expand...

I am interested in just which party they would go to. The Communist Party USA? The Green Party? Into a vaccum?

Or if you can not have Ron Paul and all of his ideas, you would rather have Hilary or Barak with the opposite of his ideas over a Republican with most of his ideas. This is where you people confound me.
 
Many of us old enough to remember voted in 1994 for a strong independent candidate running as a 3rd party named Ross Perot. Ross took many of the conservative vote that would have gone to GB #1 which caused the orginal Clinton to win the election.
Click to expand...


As mentioned above, Bush Senior brought about his own political demise with his reversal of his "Read My Lips, No New Taxes" pledge. Perot would have gotten few conservative votes if not for that.

I don't see any similar mass anger amongst conservatives that would drive them to vote third party this cycle.

A Hillary Clinton campaign would convince most conservatives to hold their noses and vote, if not for Rudy, then at least for John McCain.

Ron Paul is going to have little if any impact this election cycle, any way you look at it.
 
rhgunguy, you confound me. Why would my vote go to any party that does not adhere to the Constitution, if the reason that I am supporting Paul is because he does adhere to the Constitution? Or are you just not listening to the words coming out of my mouth?
 
rhgunguy, you confound me. Why would my vote go to any party that does not adhere to the Constitution, if the reason that I am supporting Paul is because he does adhere to the Constitution? Or are you just not listening to the words coming out of my mouth?
Click to expand...

Wait, what?

IF the reason you are supporting Paul is because he adheres to the constitution THEN you have to think BOTH parties didn't adhereor at least no other condidates. No?

So, that is why the question comes up to which party would you vote?

I am not so sure which party is more constitution adherent at this point is obvious.
 
Ross took many of the conservative vote that would have gone to GB #1 which caused the orginal Clinton to win the election.
Click to expand...

Why do these little history lessons always end in 1993, before Republicans realized Perot might have been on to something, and Mr. Newt wrote the Contract with America, a sitting Speaker lost his seat, and 4 decades of Dem control of the Congress ended? The Republican Revolution would never have happened without Ross Perot.
 
Or if you can not have Ron Paul and all of his ideas, you would rather have Hilary or Barak with the opposite of his ideas over a Republican with most of his ideas. This is where you people confound me.
Click to expand...

The answer for me is that mainstream Republicans lost credibility in advancing those ideas when the GOP took over all three branches of government and proceeded to grow government spending at more than TWICE the rate we saw under Bill Clinton.

It's not just the nice ideas, it's who I believe might actually try to implement them.

If Hillary tries to continue the growth in spending, I expect Republicans will fight it. If a mainstream Republican tries to continue the growth in spending, I don't expect anyone will fight it.
 
Why would my vote go to any party that does not adhere to the Constitution, if the reason that I am supporting Paul is because he does adhere to the Constitution? Or are you just not listening to the words coming out of my mouth?
Click to expand...

So you will not vote at all. Give up on one of your Constitutional rights. Dr. Paul would be ashamed
 
I am interested in just which party they would go to. The Communist Party USA? The Green Party? Into a vaccum?
Click to expand...

The Libertarian Party http://www.lp.org/

Why would the people who support Dr. Paul vote for the candidate who was their political polar opposite?

The fact is we Libertarians are as far away from the political beliefs of the Green and Communist parties as you can get.

You need to stop listening to screeching psuedo conservatives like Sean Hannity and learn that not just leftists oppose our current mideast adventurism.

75% of the American people oppose the Iraq War.

I seriously doubt the majority of them are hardcore leftists.
 
Why do these little history lessons always end in 1993, before Republicans realized Perot might have been on to something, and Mr. Newt wrote the Contract with America, a sitting Speaker lost his seat, and 4 decades of Dem control of the Congress ended? The Republican Revolution would never have happened without Ross Perot.
Click to expand...
That's correct, that and the AWB did the Democrats in during the mid-term elections. Of course the Republicans that had just been elected sold out their mandate within two years, and ran another crappy candidate in 1996.

It's my hope that all Ron Paul supporters, in the event he does not win the Republican nomination, will not cast a presidential vote for anyone. Just based on the combined fourth place position Paul has now, that would effectively remove more than 10% of potential voters from all the other candidates.

The 10% solution.
 
How does Ron Paul running in the Republican Primary steal votes from the Republican in the general election?

Some folks here sound like they would prefer for the US to have those one-candidate type elections, like they had in Iraq under Saddam. I guess I can understand why; it is hard for a political party that has failed across the board and has involved us in a war with no end in sight to remain in power if other candidates are allowed on the ballot.

Have you ever considered that maybe the reason vote for a third party is because they are as unhappy with one party as the other? If the Republican party would try to include Paul supporters rather than mock them and call them names, maybe they would be more likely to stay in the party?
 
Last edited:
How does Ron Paul running in the Republican Primary steal votes from the Republican in the general election?
Click to expand...

It does not. We are concerned that if Paul does not get the nomination in the primary, he will run third party in the general election.
 
I'll do exactly what I did in 92 and vote Libertarian. I vote for every Libertarian candidate on my ballot when I go into the voting booth and have since 1980 so it ain't gonna big a big change for me. The bigger change for me is voting in a Republican primary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top