WI: Ross Perot runs in 2000 Presidential election

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: After 1900' started by Bourbonic Plague, May 15, 2019.


Percentage of Perot votes

  1. 20% or higher

    0 vote(s)
  2. 10%

  3. 5%

  4. 3%

  5. 2% or less

Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. Bourbonic Plague Well-Known Member

    Aug 23, 2018
    Ross Perot ran in 1992 and 1996 and got roughly 19 and 9 percent of the votes in each election respectively. How well would he do in 2000, and how will he influence the other canidates (including Ralph Nader)?
  2. m0585 Well-Known Member

    Dec 11, 2015
    I imagine that Perot would pull enough votes away from Bush to allow Gore to win. He racked up 483,000 votes in Florida in 1996. He would only need to pull 537 away from Bush to give the state to Gore, and thus the Presidency.
  3. Amadeus Well-Known Member

    Mar 19, 2017
    In 1992 and 1996, Perot took votes equally from both parties. In '92, the Washington Post did a state by state analysis that showed if Perot hadn't run, Ohio would've flipped to Bush but Clinton would still have been elected President. Given how close 2000 was, it's unknowable what the outcome might've been if Perot had run. Perhaps Florida swings to Gore. Perhaps it stays with Bush. Is Nader's influence neutralized with Perot in the race? If not, then the combination of Bush, Perot, and Nader might be too much for Gore to overcome. In fact Perot's presence could ultimately help Nader if he, as a fellow third party candidate, is given more media exposure.
    Last edited: May 15, 2019
    GermanDjinn likes this.
  4. Bourbonic Plague Well-Known Member

    Aug 23, 2018
    To me, I think that Perot would take more votes from Gore as there seemed to be more of a split in the democratic party. I mean, Nader was a nobody and took quite a few votes from Gore. Perot had nationwide name recognition and party infrastructure.
    I think Nader would be overshadowed, as any anti 2 party voters tend to go for the biggest third party.
  5. Jackson Lennock Well-Known Member

    Dec 18, 2017
    Perot being the 2000 nominee means no collapse of the Reform Party in 2000. Ventura won't quit if Buchanan and his crew aren't running the show and Perot will very likely break the 5% threshold. If Perot and the machine as a whole keeps going, I wonder if there'll be a positive knock-on for Penny's 2002 Gubernatorial bid.

    Gore was a dull campaigner and I can see Perot outshining him. I can see him going after both Bush and Gore as more of the same (Gore due to 8 years of Democrats, Bush due to being another George Bush).

    Perot will probably benefit from W's DUI scandal more than Gore did historically. Perot will get a few extra votes in Florida due to the butterfly ballot.

    Does Perot get a real running mate? In 1996 he had Pat Choate, who was just some economist who co-authored a book with Perot.
    • McCain appreciated Perot for taking care of hi first wife while he was in Vietnam, but he also said Perot was nuttier than a fruitcake in 2000. Plus Perot hated McCain for leaving Carol McCain for Cindy and for not wanting to look further into the issue of Vietnam POW survivors.
    • Buchanan might be willing to accept the number two slot
    • Ventura tried to get Lowell Weicker to run in 2000. Maybe Perot-Weicker could work.

    Anyway, the biggest impact I see is the prospect of Perot spoiling somebody and the Reform Party breaking 5% and thus getting 50-state ballot access and federal funds again in 2004.
  6. Bourbonic Plague Well-Known Member

    Aug 23, 2018
    Would you see more reform party governors and maybe a few representatives and senator's if the reform party survives a bit longer?
  7. Omar04 Well-Known Member

    Sep 11, 2018

    I doubt it. Remember, Jesse Ventura alone barely won. Plus the uphill battle against the two party system made even harder with FPTP.
  8. Jackson Lennock Well-Known Member

    Dec 18, 2017
    The only state that had a Reform Party that did much was Minnesota, so I doubt it. A vibrant Minnesota Reform Party would probably be somewhat like the Wisconsin Progressives or Minnesota DFL - stubbornly around but not transformational for the american body politic.

    Minnesota Reform had actually decent candidates though.
    Jesse Ventura was a mayor of a sizable city and a celebrity.
    Tim Penny was a long-time congressman with strong bipartisan bonafides.
    Peter Hutchinson, the 2006 candidate for Governor, was Deputy Mayor Minneapolis, State Finance Chair, and Superintendent of Minneapolis Public Schools.
    Their 2010 gubernatorial candidate was endorsed by David Durenburger, Arne Carlson, Al Quie, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, and Duluth News Tribune.

    If you look at Hutchinson in 2006...
    I can see some of these guys doing alright if there's more energy for the Reform Party nationally.

    Aside from them, maybe Reform branches out into the Dakotas, Alaska, and Maine.