What if Ross Perot formed a party to run in the 1994 elections.

What if after he lost the 1992 elections Perot formed a political party to run in the 1994 midterms. Would it get any momentum and gain seats? Or would it crash and burn
 
This did happen on a small scale, United We Stand America was established shortly after the election and was the forerunner of the Reform Party, and there were a number of groups related to Perot's campaign that worked to establish their own parties, notably the Minnesota Independence Party. That said, I doubt even with earlier effort on his part it would have made a whole lot of difference for the '94 midterms, especially when you consider the performance of those who ran alongside Perot who failed to experience any coattail effect, and with many Republican candidates co-opting parts of Perot's Populist message.

Now it might have placed it in a stronger position for the 1996 Elections, but I doubt it would have gotten into Congress on its first go; at best you'd see a smattering of wins on the local level.
 
A third party will have a hard time in congressional races. In most cases the only thing they can do is play spoiler, and that side of the aisle will be angry at the third party in the next cycle.

NAFTA ended up being enacted by the lame duck Congress and Clinton passed an economic program designed to solve the deficit, so Perot's main issues were off the table anyway.
 
Well that largely depends upon whom runs. Perot, to my knowledge, did not endorse any congressmen or governors during the 1992 election, and he did not form the Reform Party until 1995. If the party is formed in 1993 though, whom could run? Some likely candidates would be:


Jesse Ventura

Donald Trump

Angus King

Joseph Lieberman

John McCain

Ralph Nader

Dick Lamm


Now could these candidates win in 1994? They would have to establish themselves to their proposed constituents while appealing to “The Perot Coalition”. Some had already held office or currently were, and others would be political outsiders. If Perot was smart, he would focus his energy upon winning midterm elections in states he did well in (ex. Maine, Alaska, Nevada, Minnesota, etc.)

Even in 1998, the Reform Party got more votes in the midterms than all other third parties combined. Reform winning a few seats in 1994 wouldn’t be that crazy. It was not until 2000 when Pat Buchanan lead the party towards Paleo-conservatism (which was so controversial among party members they held a second convention to nominate John Hagelin, an incident that went to court and had to be straighten out by the FEC), that the party started to “die.”

But that exact infighting might just be what would’ve doomed this potential 1994 Reform wave. Dick Lamm’s fans formed their own party in 1997 after they accused Perot of stealing the nomination from them. And the 2000 Reform Presidential primaries were infamously hectic and toxic. There lied the reason the party died, not because Americans hated the idea of third-parties, but because any crank could run, without approval from Mr. Perot. Could we see David Duke run for House of Representatives in 1994 on the Reform Party ticket? Or another fringe candidate that would hurt the party’s brand as a whole? Perot would need to know how to avoid bad press in such a scenario.
 
But that exact infighting might just be what would’ve doomed this potential 1994 Reform wave. Dick Lamm’s fans formed their own party in 1997 after they accused Perot of stealing the nomination from them. And the 2000 Reform Presidential primaries were infamously hectic and toxic. There lied the reason the party died, not because Americans hated the idea of third-parties, but because any crank could run, without approval from Mr. Perot. Could we see David Duke run for House of Representatives in 1994 on the Reform Party ticket? Or another fringe candidate that would hurt the party’s brand as a whole? Perot would need to know how to avoid bad press in such a scenario.
Yeah, this is and was one of the major problems that came with the Reform Party, in that it was too easy for people to take advantage of the ballot access or use the party as their own political vehicle, and naturally that attracted a lot of fringe elements. There isn't a good way of avoiding that in the beginning when you are going to be struggling to recruit candidates as it is, and I can't think of many States other then maybe New York that let a Party "veto" a candidate even if no one else has filed.
 
How is Perot's party going to get ballot access in enough states? A lot of states make it hard for third parties to get ballot access (usually harder than running as an independent), although they could endorse a member running as an independent. It's going to be pretty expensive to get the political infrastructure in place, and there won't be a lot of returns in '94 outside of some state legislature victories and maybe a few (less than 10) representatives--tons of spoiler effect though. This would be something where they'd need to be making their first inroads in elections to make sure they had ballot access everywhere for 1996 or 1998 when combined with an even better Perot presidential campaign that year, they'd be in a better position.

Either Perot would have to win in '92 (or at least win a couple of states) or Perot doesn't run (for president, at least) and instead creates the Reform Party to run candidates in the 1992 elections for mayoral elections, state legislatures, gubernatorial elections, Congress, etc, with the Ross Perot presidential run coming in 1996 (or even 2000).
 
Top