The False Perot-Trump Comparison, Yet Why I Hope Trump Doesn't Go 3rd Party

Last edited Tue Jul 21, 2015, 08:47 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm a registered Dem and have been voting Dem since I could first vote. My first vote for a person was for Hillary Clinton in 2008 and I'm still damn proud of it. I'm a Clintonite Dem, from the northeast suburbs. Most of the states near my home state used to vote Republican very reliably before they Clintons came around. Think New Jersey, New Hampshire, Vermont (!), Maine, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland (I'm not from the midwest or west coast, but other states that were GOP before the Clintons include California, Michigan, and Illinois). I'm for an economy that allows young people to move up regardless of their parent's money or if they happen to simply have been friends with the right kids in high school. I'm for women's right to abortion and don't believe gays should be punished for a trait that was not chosen, same with non-whites. However, I do support the death penalty for multiple murderers or handicapped/elderly person murderers, and don't believe in extreme taxes (>45%) on anyone, because I think the rich should neither be coddled nor eaten alive, altho I'm getting mighty tired of the lies of Wall Street (they pushed this iWatch on everyone too). Even if I were a first year investment banking analyst, I'd still not make enough to benefit from Republican policies. The Clintons not only made the party viable again nationally, but ushered in an era in which the GOP cannot win the most popular votes more than 1 time in a quarter century. From 1968 to 1988, the GOP averaged over 400 electoral votes. Since 1992, they average 210, which means on average, they lose. Even nominees like Gore* and Kerry, who didn't make it to the WH, did miles better in the electoral college than the 1968-1988 Dem nominees besides Carter 1976.

One of the things that's turned me off about the Republican Party, aside from their social policies and tax cuts for people who don't need them, is their tendency to rewrite history, lie about it, or both. Do they really think anyone believes the south went Republican other than because of civil rights? "Economic reasons?" lololooll. Or that impeaching a President over sex is "family values?" Or that Murphy Brown violates them? Only on aspects of foreign policy do I come close, like with Israel, jihadism, communism, but thats it.

I'm a student of data and history. It is true that a recent poll showed that Jeb Bush would be greatly hurt by a Donald Trump 3rd party bid. However, notice what happens to Hillary: she goes from 50-44 (with 100 no longer the denominator, that's over 50% of the vote) to 46-30-20, which is less than that. 50-44 is still out of the margin of error in that poll, 4%. In the tradition of "I am not a scientist" on global warming, the GOP has peddled the lie that Ross Perot "elected" Bill Clinton, which data shows to be utterly false. It is false because:

1. Exit polls from election night 1992, a better method than just saying what one wants to believe, show that Clinton would have won over 50% of the vote absent Perot, and thus in more than 9 in 10 trials, the election.

2. George H.W. Bush's approval ratings in 1992 rivaled Jimmy Carter's in 1980. Both in their election years were not only lower than Reagan 84 and Clinton 96, but lower than Bush 04 and Obama 12. You don't win with under 40% and below approvals.

3. The GOP (and the anti-Clinton fringe left) also leave out that when Perot was not in the race, which was from July to the start of October 1992, Bush Sr. still polled near the 37% that approved of his performance and that he won in the end. Nate Silver, a data and stats expert, also disagrees with the idea that Perot cost Bush tho he does believe he hurt Clinton.

4. Ross Perot was not a conservative like Nader was a liberal or Trump is running as a conservative. Perot was pro-choice, pro-gay rights, and against trickle down economics.

The smear against Bill that "he only won because of a 3rd party spoiler" was not only factually incorrect wholly, but very damaging to his presidency and legacy. Without a press-validated mandate, of course health care reform was going to be a problem. It also gave the GOP cover to slime him in the press as well as the media to slime Clinton too with the lies of "Whitewater," and other Bullshit-"gates" because he didn't "win a majority." They've also pushed hard-right policies because the Perot-lie is the impetus to believe this country is to the "right." The GOP is peddling this lie today, and along with their anti-Clinton media allies are using Trump to do so. The Perot lie was also used against Hillary in 2008 by people to her left, and can even be found on places on our side of the fence somehow, probably due to the self-flaggelating tendencies of progressives at times. The Perot myth helped the GOP bring about Monica, which brought about W. Bush.

Even tho Trump is not Perot, Hillary still loses points but fewer than Jeb to Trump. That was not the case with Ross Perot. However, if Hillary gets elected but has less than the mythical 50%, her governing ability will be tenuous at best and the media will slime her worse than they already do. I would much rather her win 50.01% to 49.98% and with 270 electoral votes than with 46%-30% and 400 electoral votes. I'm tired of the lies and sliming of the Clintons, who made their own way instead of inheriting wealth like the Bushes, Donald Trump, Romney, and even Chafee and Gore (tho Gore is a good guy unlike the other blowhards). The Clintons also showed that even in the power vacuum of the Cold War ending, America leads. The Clintons made this party viable. If the last GOP nominee had won the states that Clinton won in 1992 that have continued to vote straight Dem but that Dukakis, Mondale, McGovern, and Carter '80 lost, Romney would've been Prez.

So I hope to god Trump doesn't run third party. Hillary not only still beats Bush outside the margin of error without Trump now, but will probably do so badly next year. If Trump stays out, her mandate can be complete. I believe Trump or not, she can win WV, MO, AR, and KY or TN again. I wouldn't rule out a landslide with just Clinton vs. Jeb Bush, 55-45, but obviously thats the ideal choice: this post is about 2 bad choices. I don't know why the GOP thinks Jeb could win, especially if they don't believe a richer and sober Billy Carter woulda done so in 1988.

(note: I know I posted this elsewhere earlier, but this forum I think is more appropriate)