Better Perot Campaign

[MerryPrankster]

In 1992, Ross Perot ran for President as the Reform candidate. He won 19% of the vote and possibly swung the election to Bill Clinton.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot

How might he have improved his campaign so that he has a good chance of winning the election, or at the very least swinging it into the House of Representatives?

The primary idea I had is for him to not drop out of the race. Perhaps he is less intimidated by Bill Clinton, and/or whatever happened involving his daughter's wedding and Republican operatives does not occur. One would think that his campaign lost momentum or credibility due to this.

The other idea I had involved him getting a different running mate, although the Wikipedia article on James Stockdale says that his poor performance at the Vice Presidential Debate was due to problems with his hearing aid and/or lack of preparation. Perhaps a better-prepared Stockdale could spin off from Perot not dropping out.

Now, what effects might a Perot presidency have? Or, more likely, what effects might result from the President being chosen by the House of Representatives?

 

[reformer]

I know its a shot in the dark, but maybe Jerry Brown, who has always had a grass roots streak and is definately and unconventional politician left the Democratic Party and became Perot's running mate. That may give Perot a chance.

 

[zoomar]

It's hard to speculate what might have happened had Perot not dropped out and then re-entered the race. It significantly hurt his credibility with many people. As mentioned, Stockdale didn't help, but Perot mainly hurt himself.

I doubt if any combination of candidates on the Reform Party Ticket could have won outright in a 3-way race, but it's very likely the election may have been forced to the House of Representatives - and it's remorely possible wierd things could have happened there. But more than likely, Clinton still gets the Oral Office.

 

[drewmc2001]

I like your concept, but allow me to play devil's advocate with your premise. To have outright won the plurality of the popular vote perot would have had to have appealed to about 38 million voters.

But here's the problem with your scenario, as a see it, it is that Perot took a lot more from GHWBush than he did from Clinton. Absent some reason you have yet to provide, that a pro-business economically conservative 3rd party millionaire is going to appeal to a greater number of Clinton supporters, I don't see Perot's run garnering enough support to tip the balance. You really have to emasculate the republican party so thoroughly as to make the candidate unpalatable to the vast majority of republicans to counteract Clinton's popular vote in each state.

But back to your question at the end... Lets say that Perot actually won a few states that actually went to Clinton (By stealing lot of republican votes) so that he has 35% of the electoral college votes. The Dems and republicans have the rest (mind you, if you evicerate the republicans in order to get Perot enough votes I really don't see the republicans having very many electoral votes, but I'll ignore that for the time being) - with about a 40-25 split. IF the vote goes to the house there are 50 votes there. One for each state. Yep, Tiny, little Rhode Island has the same vote as California, as proscribed by the Constitution. So the question now becomes what would the various state delegations choose to do. I'd imagine that any state with more than 1 vote would have a causus to decide how they'd cast their one vote. Here's where it could get sticky. There's several states that have two representatives. If one was D and one was R (or I or L or whatever) then that state could deadlock on the vote.

In all likelihood, if the House was unable to resolve itself the Supreme Court would rule on the case and Hello President Clinton (assuming a plurality of the electoral votes).

In 1992, Ross Perot ran for President as the Reform candidate. He won 19% of the vote and possibly swung the election to Bill Clinton.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot

How might he have improved his campaign so that he has a good chance of winning the election, or at the very least swinging it into the House of Representatives?

The primary idea I had is for him to not drop out of the race. Perhaps he is less intimidated by Bill Clinton, and/or whatever happened involving his daughter's wedding and Republican operatives does not occur. One would think that his campaign lost momentum or credibility due to this.

The other idea I had involved him getting a different running mate, although the Wikipedia article on James Stockdale says that his poor performance at the Vice Presidential Debate was due to problems with his hearing aid and/or lack of preparation. Perhaps a better-prepared Stockdale could spin off from Perot not dropping out.

Now, what effects might a Perot presidency have? Or, more likely, what effects might result from the President being chosen by the House of Representatives?

 

[eschaton]

Perot would have something to offer Democratic voters that Clinton didn't: He was anti-NAFTA. He also took a harder line against immigration from what I remember. He was also against Gulf War One.

In general, despite his being a conservative on most issues, he had the viewpoint that the U.S. ought to totally review our system of goverment and see if we could come up with something better. While his ideas may have been in part empty rhetoric, I think they appealed to people across the party divide, and he stood as good of a shot of winning as any independent could in America.

 

[tinfoil]

A stronger Perot result in 1992 would have told both 'traditional' parties that real change was desired. Clinton would still have won (most likely with MORE electorical votes as Bush's votes were split more deeply), but a 30% or so popular vote for Perot would have told both parties that the electorate were no longer content with status quo.

Of the 19% who voted for Perot OTL, I suspect there were few 'staunch democrats' or 'staunch republicans', which means most of the nearly one-in-five were the 'swing voters' who actually applied some thought to their votes.

A stronger Perot vote might have suggested that reform, REAL reform, was what a growing piece of the population wanted.

 

[Douglas]

A stronger Perot result in 1992 would have told both 'traditional' parties that real change was desired. Clinton would still have won (most likely with MORE electorical votes as Bush's votes were split more deeply), but a 30% or so popular vote for Perot would have told both parties that the electorate were no longer content with status quo.

Of the 19% who voted for Perot OTL, I suspect there were few 'staunch democrats' or 'staunch republicans', which means most of the nearly one-in-five were the 'swing voters' who actually applied some thought to their votes.

A stronger Perot vote might have suggested that reform, REAL reform, was what a growing piece of the population wanted.

I was four years old in the 1992 election, but of my voting relatives (father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, uncle, aunt) all were staunch conservatives (and still are today, although my uncle and aunt have moderated a little) and 4 of them voted for Perot because of his conservative, yet independent style. All four regret it to this day, (well three, since my grandfather died, but he regretted it too).

 

[Shope]

I voted for Perot in '92 and '96--and I don't regret it at all. Perot turned out to be a punk, but still not as big a punk as Clinton, Dole, Gore, or either Bush.

 

[raharris1973]

Swing voters are dumber than partisans I tend to think.

"Of the 19% who voted for Perot OTL, I suspect there were few 'staunch democrats' or 'staunch republicans', which means most of the nearly one-in-five were the 'swing voters' who actually applied some thought to their votes."

I suspect that people who apply thought and think about what they want in terms of personality probably are more consistently partisan than swing voters who switch back and forth based on fairly lame "thoughts" based on personality quirks of the candidates that barely effect actual executive branch functioning.

 

[raharris1973]

I screwed that up, I meant to say:

"I suspect that people who apply thought and think about what they want in terms of policy probably are more consistently partisan than swing voters who switch back and forth based on fairly lame "thoughts" based on personality quirks of the candidates that barely effect actual executive branch functioning."

There may be a small subset of swing voters who are strategic and have some policy preferences neither party supports and calculate what congressional-White House combo is most likely to give them what they want. These people are more thoughtful than most staunch partisans, but I betcha their much rarer than people who swing their vote based off a few soundbites they've absorbed while only half paying attention to any political news they absorb by osmosis.

 

[Wendell]

Perot ran in 1992 as an independent. The Reform Party was not created until AFTER his 1992 candidacy.

 

[Mr_ Bondoc]

The Man Was Nuts!!

Consider that the man was certifiably nuts!! In 1992, Perot claimed that the North Vietnamese government had hired the Black Panthers to assasinate him, back in 1970, because of his efforts on behalf of POWs. He even said that "one night they had five people coming across my front lawn with rifles", and that a guard dog bit a big piece out of one attacker's butt.

Just before Perot's 1993 debate with Gore, he announced that the FBI had alerted him that a six-member Cuban hit squad had been sent to murder him. "The organization is a Mafia-like group in favor of the North American Free Trade Agreement", Perot claimed. (Posner, p327-8) The FBI had told him about an anonymous tip that he would be assassinated, but public figures get weird threat calls all the time. What is striking is that Perot believed the claim, embellished it and announced it publicly.

He thinks he lost his 1993 debate to Al Gore because Gore had a hidden earpiece, through which he was being fed answers, or possibly questions. (Posner, p330). While he was serving on a Texas anti-drug commission in the early 1980s, he became convinced that Charles Harrelson (the father of actor Woody Harrelson, from "Cheers") had been hired to kill him by drug dealers. (The elder Harrelson is in fact a career criminal doing time for killing a federal judge.) The FBI dismissed his fears as baseless.

 

[Wendell]

Consider that the man was certifiably nuts!! In 1992, Perot claimed that the North Vietnamese government had hired the Black Panthers to assasinate him, back in 1970, because of his efforts on behalf of POWs. He even said that "one night they had five people coming across my front lawn with rifles", and that a guard dog bit a big piece out of one attacker's butt.

Just before Perot's 1993 debate with Gore, he announced that the FBI had alerted him that a six-member Cuban hit squad had been sent to murder him. "The organization is a Mafia-like group in favor of the North American Free Trade Agreement", Perot claimed. (Posner, p327-8) The FBI had told him about an anonymous tip that he would be assassinated, but public figures get weird threat calls all the time. What is striking is that Perot believed the claim, embellished it and announced it publicly.

He thinks he lost his 1993 debate to Al Gore because Gore had a hidden earpiece, through which he was being fed answers, or possibly questions. (Posner, p330). While he was serving on a Texas anti-drug commission in the early 1980s, he became convinced that Charles Harrelson (the father of actor Woody Harrelson, from "Cheers") had been hired to kill him by drug dealers. (The elder Harrelson is in fact a career criminal doing time for killing a federal judge.) The FBI dismissed his fears as baseless.

The more things change, the more they stay the same...