Perot gets 20% in 1996

What if and how could Ross Perot get 20% in 1996 like how he got 19% in 1992?

A stronger running mate would likely be a necessity. Dick Lamm maybe? Jeane Kirkpatrick?

Maybe Buchanan takes the GOP nomination and a number of Republicans jump ship for Perot.
 
For one, the Reform Party gets immediate major party status, nationwide, which would have some interesting electoral complications in future elections. We would effectively have a three party system.
 
For one, the Reform Party gets immediate major party status, nationwide, which would have some interesting electoral complications in future elections. We would effectively have a three party system.

America gets a bit like Britain in the late 90s/early 2000s. Not quite three but definitely 2 1/2 .

Would we see policy shifts from the Big two as Perot seemingly moves the Overton Window?
 
See, I think that if Buchanan becomes the Republican nominee in '96, Clinton would likely stand to gain more than Perot would. While it is true that Buchanan and Perot held very different views on social issues, much of their economic and trade positions were very similar, especially in their opposition to NAFTA. The two would split the protectionist vote (such as it is), and moderate, well-to-do suburban Republicans who would be reticent to vote for Buchanan would probably be more likely to switch to Clinton based on his economic policies as POTUS.

To really drive up Perot's numbers, you'd need someone who was as conservative as Buchanan is on social issues who happens to hold more conventionally Republican views on trade and the economy to win the GOP nomination.
 
See, I think that if Buchanan becomes the Republican nominee in '96, Clinton would likely stand to gain more than Perot would. While it is true that Buchanan and Perot held very different views on social issues, much of their economic and trade positions were very similar, especially in their opposition to NAFTA. The two would split the protectionist vote (such as it is), and moderate, well-to-do suburban Republicans who would be reticent to vote for Buchanan would probably be more likely to switch to Clinton based on his economic policies as POTUS.

To really drive up Perot's numbers, you'd need someone who was as conservative as Buchanan is on social issues who happens to hold more conventionally Republican views on trade and the economy to win the GOP nomination.

Someone like Carrol Campbell?
 
Yes, highly creative people can have a kooky side, and I think that finally caught up with Perot :p

He dropped out of the '92 race because he was worried about the Bush people disrupting his daughter's wedding ? ? ? Yes, he re-entered, but the fact that he dropped out in the first place. And there's another story in which a black guy jumps over a fence and is chased off by dogs, and Perot believes him to be a Blank Panther sent by the North Vietnamese? And I think a couple of other similar such stories. Perot had some unusual beliefs and very much marched to his own drummer.

And having four years to mull it over, a lot of voters apparently decided, this ain't quite the guy for us. Plus, the economy was doing better of course.
 
Perot was a busted flush by 1996. I don't think he's getting anywhere close to a repeat of 1992. The factors that drove that in 1992 just aren't there anymore; the economy had settled, and the strongly anti-incumbent mood of 1992 on the back of the house banking scandal etc (and the economy) had either dissipated or settled into conventional political expressions through 1994, Buchanan's candidacy and the like.
 
Top