WI: Perot not Reform Party candidate in 1996?

What Perot did not run for President for a second time. Who would take up the Reform mantle and would they make Reform more or less successful than IOTL,
 
The Reform could be more successful if some big name Politician ran as a Reform Party Candidate. John McCain would make the reform receive more votes if someone like Buchanan wins the 96 nomination.
 

DTanza

Banned
The Reform Party would have to have been formed in 1992 so it could be tried and tested in a real election, and it would have had to done a bit better than Perot did in '92 for John McCain or most serious politicians to consider running under it's banner.
 
If Perot decides not to run again, I think the Party could have a real shot at getting over 10%. Angus King and Richard Lamm would be the best Candidates if they want Electoral Success.

The way to get rid of Perot in '96 IMO is to get the Reform Party a few Seats in Congress during the Midterms, so he thinks that he just needs to sit back and watch the momentum gain. (An interesting idea would be Perot's son running for Phil Gramm's Senate Seat in 1996)
 
The Reform Party does not get the matching federal funds and does even worse:

When the 1996 election season arrived, Perot at first held off from entering the contest for the Reform Party's presidential nomination, calling for others to try for the ticket. The only person who announced such an intention was Dick Lamm, former Governor of Colorado. After the Federal Election Commission indicated only Perot and not Lamm would be able to secure federal matching funds—because his 1992 campaign was as an independent—Perot entered the race.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Party_of_the_United_States_of_America
 
Well, I guess that means that the Party needs to be founded in 1992 for it to recieve funds in 1996 without Perot.
 
And even then, it was basically a platform for Perot. I doubt any major politician would be interested in running as Perot's substitute/puppet/???
 
Richard Lamm was pretty interested in running IIRC. He picked former Congressman Ed Zschau for his VP in OTL before Perot entered.
 
The Reform could be more successful if some big name Politician ran as a Reform Party Candidate. John McCain would make the reform receive more votes if someone like Buchanan wins the 96 nomination.

And even then, it was basically a platform for Perot. I doubt any major politician would be interested in running as Perot's substitute/puppet/???

Richard Lamm was pretty interested in running IIRC. He picked former Congressman Ed Zschau for his VP in OTL before Perot entered.

A Reform Party without Perot is just not viable. Lamm would not do too much better than Buchanan did in 2000. One poll that showed Perot would get 16 percent of the vote in 1996 (which was far more than he ultimately get) showed Lamm with only five percent (which would also be far more than he would probably get). http://www.nytimes.com/1996/07/16/us/dole-s-sagging-campaign-affects-gop-morale-poll-finds.html
Emphasis added.

It was Perot's party and Perot's money. Anyone wanting to run has to live under those restrictions, really. That cuts out anyone with significant name recognition, who would have a hope of increasing the vote Perot got. I'm sorry, but Dick Who? Even having lived through the era, I don't remember that name.

So. Ja. No one the party could get could do better than Perot did. Any one who could do better than Perot wouldn't run under Perot's banner.
 
Emphasis added.

It was Perot's party and Perot's money. Anyone wanting to run has to live under those restrictions, really. That cuts out anyone with significant name recognition, who would have a hope of increasing the vote Perot got. I'm sorry, but Dick Who? Even having lived through the era, I don't remember that name.

So. Ja. No one the party could get could do better than Perot did. Any one who could do better than Perot wouldn't run under Perot's banner.

Yep. People need to keep in mind that the two-party system is incredibly entrenched in the United States, to the point where the Republican and Democratic candidates will routinely receive 98-99% of the vote between them in an election.

Perot was one of the most successful third-party candidates in U.S. history. The 19% he got in 1992 was completely out of the norm. Even the 8% he got in 1996 was an excellent performance. Put someone else on the Reform ticket, and he'll almost certainly fare worse.
 
Last edited:
Top