I mean, he got nearly 19% of the vote, and almost all of that was from the right because Perot ran as a right wing reformer, sort of a tea party guy before that was a thing. Just looking at the numbers, if not for Perot, Bush almost certainly carries Colorado, Conneticut, Delaware, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wisconsin and that's a fairly conservative estimate but it makes up 168 electoral votes literally doubling Bush's number of electoral votes to 336 easily winning him re-election. It's like suggesting that Ralph Nader didn't cost Gore the election when he took nearly 3% of the vote and that Nader took votes away from Bush, it might be true, but it's most likely not.
Why do you think people did not vote for Bush and then Perot? No one is owed a vote. Bush did not earn it. Saying Perot cost him is a false way of seeing it. Bush did more than enough to lose his support base before Perot was a factor.
It's possible that they wouldn't have voted at all, but if there wasn't an alternative most of those people would have voted for Bush if they voted. Again, it's like talking about the 2000 election and suggesting that Nader sniping 3% of the vote wasn't a factor....it absolutely was. Another way of thinking about this is how Trump became the Republican nominee, if there were only 2 or 3 candidates, Trump would have had no chance, but since there were 17, the vote was splintered enough to give him the lead and eventually that momentum carried him all the way. Perot was appealing to Bush's base in a way Clinton never would have been and that caused a significant portion of the Republican base to vote 3rd party instead of just going with the party choice and re-electing Bush....which is what they'd have done if there was no 3rd option.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...f2325d1/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0b0d9fd410c0 "Ross Perot's presence on the 1992 presidential ballot did not change the outcome of the election, according to an analysis of the second choices of Perot supporters. The analysis, based on exit polls conducted by Voter Research & Surveys (VRS) for the major news organizations, indicated that in Perot's absence, only Ohio would have have shifted from the Clinton column to the Bush column. This would still have left Clinton with a healthy 349-to-189 majority in the electoral college." Bush was awful. Clinton ran a good campaign. Perot voters likely would have chosen Clinton. Largely because Bush was not a good president. Even a lot of people leaning right did not like him and would have gone for a moderate left option after seeing Bush fail so badly. It is largely possible that Perot was a vote of no confidence in Bush and many righr wingers doing so without having to disgracefully put Clinton in the house with a direct vote. And data actually supports that many jaded voters would have voted for Clinton if Perot did not give them the comfortable alternative.
Him being a corpse is definitely not going to change anything. I will not pretend the world is not better off. Same goes for McCain's death.
You seem like you're a blast at parties. Rest in peace to a great American and Houstonian. I didn't agree with many of his policies but there's not doubt what kind of person he was. It really showed in later years when he'd do the charity work with President Clinton. I always thought it was awesome seeing him and Barbara behind home plate all those years...George cheering and Barbara keeping score. He will certainly be missed.
wtf? Shame on the AP article for calling him a hero and saying he was humble, modest and polite. Have they no shame?
I fail to see how you logically separate the two. The meaningful part of his life you fundamentally disagree with but are cool with it because he was a sports fan.
I know right. Shout out to all of the children that have died starting way back in desert storm, and still dying in Iraq today.
Those children must be real sad. Also the vets he lied about getting hit with nerve agents. Good times. Let us remember what a great Prez he was! A real humanitarian!
What does that have to do with Bush Sr? What would you have done. Let Iraq take Kuwait? What would happen to Kuwait’s Children if that happened?
Yes he is a great humanitarian. What have you raised for charity? What time and commitment have you done for the human cause? Because I know what Bush sr. has done. I am not talking about jr. which I was not a fan of.
https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-r...ct-and-the-education-of-congressman-george-hw Civil rights presented a paradox for Bush. In 1964, when he battled his Democratic challenger Ralph Yarborough in vain for Yarborough's Texas seat in the U.S. Senate, Bush denounced his opponent's support of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, enormously unpopular in their home state. While he justified his resistance to the bill on Constitutional grounds as an infringement of state's rights just as his party's presidential nominee Barry Goldwater did, he also came to regret it, conceding later that he "took some far-right positions to get elected," and hoped "not to do it again." A chance for atonement came four years later. By the time of King's assassination, Bush was an ambitious, up-and-coming congressman representing Texas' 7th District, a seat he had earned in 1966. During his first year in office, Bush visited American troops in Vietnam, paying his own way, in order to get a firsthand view of the war. There he saw "young black soldiers fighting for love of their country while affluent white kids ran away or got deferred." It left a deep impression on him. Despite harboring the same constitutional issues, he believed that African-Americans, facing routine discrimination in the real estate market, should have the same rights to housing as whites; the Fair Housing Act, though likely to be difficult to enforce,was a way of making it a law. On the day of King's assassination, Bush expressed his views to Chase Untermeyer, a Harvard undergraduate who had volunteered in Bush's congressional office and had earlier drafted a memo outlining the reasons Bush should support the stalled bill. "I'll vote for the bill on final passage," Bush assured Untermeyer in a handwritten letter. "Have misgivings - giant political misgivings - also I know it won't solve much ... but I'm for much of the bill and in my heart I know you're right on the symbolism of open housing." He continued, "The mail (on Fair Housing) is more on this than any subject since I've been in Congress - all against except 2 letters. 500 to 2 I'd guess. But this will be my character builder." Soon after the bill's signing, character intact, Bush returned to Houston where he met with a group of angry constituents in the gymnasium of Houston's Memorial High School. "With one of the most conservative party voting records in the House, I am now accused of killing the Republican Party with this one vote," he said before offering an impassioned moral defense of his position on housing rights. The crowd's mood began to shift. When Bush finished, he received a standing ovation. George W. Bush wrote later that it was "by far the most meaningful public event" of his father's early political career.
