A sitting US president, even an unpopular one in far over his head, is about as far as you can get from “the bottom of the barrel”.
I discussed Perot on the playground at school. We all thought that he’d save the country a bunch of money since he’d use his own personal wealth to do things. I also remember us being very disappointed when he quit for a bit and came back, as everyone started saying he no longer stood a chance.
Now, we kids knew nothing about politics, so we had to have heard that idea from someone.
Seems to me that his position on NAFTA was probably a major component, as noted above. I didn’t vote for him, but as time as gone on, I’m not sure but that he wasn’t mostly right about NAFTA.
I was going to vote for Perot and it is lucky that he dropped out and came back in because otherwise he stood a chance. Dropping out then coming back was really showing his craziness up front rather than confirming it after an election. It transformed him from a person who has some crazy ideas that might just work to someone who has crazy ideas that will do anything to implement them (such as wielding executive power beyond its traditional constraints) even if they are bad and everyone else is against them.
A lot like Ron Paul. 90% of both of their ideas might be the best thing since unicorn farts but it only takes one poorly thought out idea to ruin a country. (Hello, gold standard!)
I always thought they should change things up - add a ‘None of the above’ spot instead of a write in spot, and if that got the majority vote, everything had to be redone and none of the original candidates could re-run.
Expensive solution. It means running the whole election and the whole campaign season over again with different candidates.
I think Perot campaigned hard on a few select issues such as deficit reduction and protectionism as an economic populist. He was sufficiently vague on social/religious issues to appeal to both disaffected Blue Collar Democrats who were not sold on Clinton and what we would now call Tea Party Conservatives - they liked Perot’s stance on free trade agreements and other issues. But I also remember Perot had the courage to call for things such as a national gasoline tax to reduce the deficit and encourage conservation to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. That probably helped cut his early poll numbers in half, but it was a bold stand.
Perot’s basic fiscal message, IIRC, was:
-
The federal budget deficit is Problem #1.
-
To reduce it, we need to raise taxes and cut spending at the same time.
I do wonder, how many pols or, for that matter, voters who agree with his diagnosis really are willing to embrace both parts of his solution, when it comes down to it?
And what would have happened if it had been tried? (Cue recession, I’m thinking, and perhaps tax revenue actually drops despite rate increases.)
The 1992 election, much like the 2008 election, was one in which the voters hungered for change. Perot was a straight-shooter, self-made success story, yet smart enough to grasp issues and come up with ideas to address them. He also occupied the center, unlike a lot of independent candidates who end up on the fringe.
But like most non-politicians who run for office and get close enough to come under media scrutiny, his skin was too thin to handle it. He went all paranoid and dropped out of the race, not 30 days after achieving a lead in the polls, a remarkable feat for an independent, and well before he was even spending money on the campaign.
By that time, Clinton had successfully co-oped Perot’s change message, and Perot basically endorsed Clinton just before the Democratic convention, which caused Clinton to get something like a 20-point bump and a commanding lead over Bush.
Why Perot then got back into the race, I have no idea.
But that’s exactly what Clinton did as soon as he got into office. Cut spending, raised taxes. Cue greatest prosperity this nation has seen in the post-war era.
Perot actually led in the popular vote polling for a while, ahead of both Bush and Clinton. (He had no chance of winning the White House: even if he had gotten the largest vote share, he’d lack an electoral vote majority, and the House of Reps would have picked the winner.)
It’s a truism to say Perot’s platform was “populist,” but some of his positions – raising taxes, raising price of fuel, cutting social security – weren’t “populist” in an obvious sense. One can argue the opposite, that the major parties pander to banal sentiment, while Perot treated voters with respect.
We mustn’t hijack this thread into a debate about protecting jobs from foreign competition, but the major parties are firmly tied to the elite and refuse to acknowledge simple truths obvious to Perot and many Americans.
If he led in the popular vote, he’d have a chance in the electoral college. If Perot had maintained his lead for more than the week or two he had it, then one of the major party candidates would have ended up as effectively the third party guy. It’s hard to see how a guy who trails in third place after Labor Day, holds onto his support. You’d start getting talk of “wasted votes” and supporters of that candidate needing to vote for the lesser of two evils. I think Bush would have been the odd man out in such a race.
Frankly, I would have been tickled to see a major party candidate, especially an incumbent President, barred from a debate because of failing to meet a polling threshold. ALthough I bet they’d change the rules if that ever happened.
I don’t recall any sense that he was being regarded as wise. He got media attention at the beginning because he was eccentric - the media was following him more for the entertainment value than out of respect. He eventually got enough support that they had to start treating him like an actual candidate.
I figure all the people who wished they could have a do-over on the 1980 election and vote for Anderson, voted for Perot in 1992.
Oh, for my money it was Stockdale all the way. The vice presidential debate was one of the most surreal things I ever saw on television.
Was it just me, or did the presence of Stockdale and Perot at the debates humanize the major party candidates more? It seemed like they needed to be a little more natural because otherwise they looked like, well, politicians otherwise. I remember that Gore and Quayle especially started out like it was a typical debate but loosened up after a few of Stockdale’s one sentence responses.
Stockdale-“I believe that abortion is a woman’s choice. Period. Period!”
Quayle-“Can I have his unused time?”
I wonder if Perot’s popularity got a boost from general anger about the “Black Monday” recession, instead of anything that he was actually bringing to the table. Other than not liking NAFTA, his platform didn’t really have a solid identity. Contrast this with Steve Forbes, who was also an outsider candidate but at least he had a clear identity - the “flat tax guy”.
Even if Bush had been in third place in the race, though, he’d still have a major advantage that Perot lacked: Members of his party in the House of Representatives. Even if Perot could have gotten more votes than Clinton or Bush, even if he got more electoral votes than either of them, he’d have been an extreme long shot to get the over half that’s needed to win directly. And if he didn’t win directly, then all of his votes cast by “the People” or their electors would become irrelevant, and the House would get to choose the President, and they’d be choosing either the Republican or the Democrat.
Just to do a refresh on the facts, Perot got 18.9% of the popular vote in 1992. George Wallace got 13.5% in 1968; the Strom Thurmond and Henry Wallace Democratic breakaways in 1948 got a combined 4.8% of the vote.
But if you look at this county-by-county breakdown of the 1992 election, it looks like Perot actually won only about a dozen counties in the entire U.S. (depending on how many counties that blotch of green in Maine represents.)
It seems pretty clear to me that Perot was just a better-funded protest vote. The bigger question should be, why couldn’t George H. W. Bush maintain an 89% approval rating long enough to get re-elected?
Incorrect. As soon as Clinton got into office, he attempted to increase spending and grow the deficit. He was prevented from doing so, mostly by Dole and the Republicans in Congress.
Regards,
Shodan