You made the assumption that Nader was a surrogate for the Dems and Buchannon was for the Republicans.....I don't think that was the case.
You are obviously a party guy, and a staunch Republican. That's cool. It's your right. I also see how you could dislike Perot. He pretty much cost Bush reelection in a lot of republican's eyes.
For a guy that "was a sideshow created by the perfect storm of a bad economy and a rich guy who could buy access and act like a Populist when in fact he just had a big ego and didn't like George Bush", he certainly gained an awful lot of support. I'll do you better than remembering his stances, I'll share some vote totals with you.....
In 1988, Bush won Colorado by approximately his national average 53% to 45%. In 1996, Bob Dole won 46% to 44%, with Perot taking 7% of the vote. But in 1992, Perot won 23% of the vote, and Clinton carried the state with 40% to Bushís 36%.
In 1988, Bush won an easy 60% to 39% victory in Georgia, while in 1996 Dole won Georgia 47% to 46%. In 1992, however, Clinton won by an eyelash, with both candidates taking 43%. Perot won 13% of the vote.
In 1988, Bush won by 56% to 44% in Kentucky. In 1996, Clinton barely defeated Dole, 45% to 44%, with Perot taking 8%. In 1992, Clinton defeated Bush 45% to 41%, with Perot taking 14%. The 1992 and 1996 results would indicate that a significant portion of the Perot vote was coming from Republicans. Republicans currently hold both U.S. Senate seats and five of six U.S. House seats in Kentucky. (Hmmmm, took republican votes and he was simply a "Bush hater"????)
Montana, 3 electoral votes: In 1988, Bush defeated Dukakis 52% to 46%, while in 1996, Dole defeated Clinton by 44% to 41%, with Perot picking up 14% of the vote. In 1992, however, Clinton narrowly edged Bush by 38% to 35%, with Perot collecting 26% of the vote.
New Hampshire, 4 electoral votes: In 1988, Bush crushed Dukakis by 63% to 36%. In 1992, however, Clinton narrowly defeated Bush, 39% to 38%, with Perot taking 23% of the vote. By 1996, New Hampshire was more securely Democratic, but for Clinton to win the state in 1992, it likely required the Perot candidacy to keep traditional Republican voters from supporting Bush.
In 1988, Bush defeated Dukakis 59% to 38% in Nevada. In 1992, Clinton edged Bush 37% to 35%, with Perot picking up 26% of the vote. Clinton won Nevada again in 1996 by 1%, with a much lower turnout.
Louisiana, 9 electoral votes: In 1988, Bush defeated Dukakis by 54% to 44%. In 1992, Clinton won 46% to 41%, with Perot taking 12% of the vote. The Perot vote would have needed to break three to one for Bush over Clinton to change the result unlikely, but possible.
In 1988, Bush won Maine by 55% to 44%. In 1992, Clinton won 39% to 30%, with Perot taking fully 30% of the vote. By 1996, Maine was solidly in Clintonís camp, but Perot provided a gateway for traditional Republican voters to shift to Democrats. There is a chance that without Perot in 1992, a good number of these voters might not have been ready to shift to Clinton over Bush.
1988, Bush won New Jersey by 56% to 42%. In 1992, Clinton edged Bush, 43% to 41%, with Perot taking 16% of the vote. Given the anti-tax spirit of many in New Jersey at that time, given the unpopularity of Gov. Jim Florioís tax increase, it is possible that the Perot vote would have broken toward Bush.
Ohio, 21 electoral votes: In 1988, Bush defeated Dukakis 55% to 44%. In 1992, however, Clinton narrowly defeated him, 40% to 38%, with Perot taking 21% of the vote.
So there ya go. Some RAW numbers for you to look at. It's ok for you to not like Ross Perot or his stance on things, but please don't blame him for Bush's failure in the 1992 election. Even if all of these states had shifted to Bush and none of Bush's victories had been reversed (as seems plausible, in fact, as Bush won by less than 5% only in states that a Republican in a close election could expect to carry), Clinton still would have won the electoral college vote by 281 to 257.
(This is fun. Be warned, I don't come to these discussions unarmed. :thumbsup: )
EDIT- All that being said, I think you are very smart, and you put your points across in a very good manner. I look forward to continued discussions with you.
eace2: I'm not a crook.
