2016 Election
Jul 28th 2015 | 5:14 am
#766
Bloody Yank
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 4,186
From: USA! USA!
Re: 2016 Election
The data that I have read indicates that Perot pulled from both parties, although that certainly does seem counterintuitive.
I haven't dived into it enough to verify or refute that contention, but if true, then I would imagine that Perot may have appealed to some Dixiecrats who opted not to back Clinton, as well as labor union Democrats who were opposed to NAFTA and free trade.
However, if someone like Perot were to run today, he would certainly pull more heavily from the Republicans, as those Dixiecrats have since become Republicans. Such a candidate still might appeal to the labor unions and Blue Dog Democrats.
I haven't dived into it enough to verify or refute that contention, but if true, then I would imagine that Perot may have appealed to some Dixiecrats who opted not to back Clinton, as well as labor union Democrats who were opposed to NAFTA and free trade.
However, if someone like Perot were to run today, he would certainly pull more heavily from the Republicans, as those Dixiecrats have since become Republicans. Such a candidate still might appeal to the labor unions and Blue Dog Democrats.
Jul 28th 2015 | 5:16 am
#767
WTF?
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 79,866
From: Homeostasis
Re: 2016 Election
The data that I have read indicates that Perot pulled from both parties, although that certainly does seem counterintuitive.
I haven't dived into it enough to verify or refute that contention, but if true, then I would imagine that Perot may have appealed to some Dixiecrats who opted not to back Clinton, as well as labor union Democrats who were opposed to NAFTA and free trade.
However, if someone like Perot were to run today, he would certainly pull more heavily from the Republicans, as those Dixiecrats have since become Republicans. Such a candidate still might appeal to the labor unions and Blue Dog Democrats.
I haven't dived into it enough to verify or refute that contention, but if true, then I would imagine that Perot may have appealed to some Dixiecrats who opted not to back Clinton, as well as labor union Democrats who were opposed to NAFTA and free trade.
However, if someone like Perot were to run today, he would certainly pull more heavily from the Republicans, as those Dixiecrats have since become Republicans. Such a candidate still might appeal to the labor unions and Blue Dog Democrats.
Jul 28th 2015 | 7:55 pm
#768
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 14,680
From: Bay Area, CA
Re: 2016 Election
I didn't see the show where she made those claims so I'm not really sure what she was saying or exactly why she was saying it. What I do know is that, anecdotally, that's not how I remember things at all. The only people I knew who actually supported Perot were disaffected conservative white people who hated Bill Clinton with a passion. They just also happened to not be overly impressed with George H.W. Bush either.
It was a very volatile time in general. AIDS activism was at its height (think Dallas Buyer's Club) and it was very divisive. Freddie Mercury had just died and Magic Johnson had just been diagnosed. Racial tensions were in the danger zone, there was Rodney King and the LA riots. People were definitely picking sides. IMO what Perot did, that may be different than what is traditionally reported about that election, is he may have helped activate some otherwise apathetic Democrats. For me personally, I found the prospect of him being elected quite frightening --- he was much more scary than GHW Bush.
Despite Perot's populist platform, he was (is) a narrow minded rich white guy from Dallas and he came across as such. He alienated black people as well as gay people with he attitudes and policy proposals. I have a hard time believing that very many people looked at it as a toss-up between him and Bill Clinton.
It was a very volatile time in general. AIDS activism was at its height (think Dallas Buyer's Club) and it was very divisive. Freddie Mercury had just died and Magic Johnson had just been diagnosed. Racial tensions were in the danger zone, there was Rodney King and the LA riots. People were definitely picking sides. IMO what Perot did, that may be different than what is traditionally reported about that election, is he may have helped activate some otherwise apathetic Democrats. For me personally, I found the prospect of him being elected quite frightening --- he was much more scary than GHW Bush.
Despite Perot's populist platform, he was (is) a narrow minded rich white guy from Dallas and he came across as such. He alienated black people as well as gay people with he attitudes and policy proposals. I have a hard time believing that very many people looked at it as a toss-up between him and Bill Clinton.
You have to suffer an ad first, but then her Loooonnnnnng rant starts. She really flogs it hard. I really like her when she's a guest on (eg) Bill Maher, but this one is tough to watch.
Jul 29th 2015 | 1:52 pm
#769
Bloody Yank
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 4,186
From: USA! USA!
Re: 2016 Election
This 1992 post mortem from the New York Times repeats the point about the vote being evenly split, and notes that Perot was pro-choice and had supporters that were less likely than average to be churchgoers:
THE 1992 ELECTIONS - DISAPPOINTMENT -- NEWS ANALYSIS An Eccentric but No Joke - Perot's Strong Showing Raises Questions On What Might Have Been, and Might Be - NYTimes.com
I don't see Trump appealing to very many Democrats, and his views aside from free trade are largely out of the GOP playbook, so I don't see Trump and Perot having much in common.
THE 1992 ELECTIONS - DISAPPOINTMENT -- NEWS ANALYSIS An Eccentric but No Joke - Perot's Strong Showing Raises Questions On What Might Have Been, and Might Be - NYTimes.com
I don't see Trump appealing to very many Democrats, and his views aside from free trade are largely out of the GOP playbook, so I don't see Trump and Perot having much in common.
Jul 30th 2015 | 1:20 pm
#770
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,206
From: Lehigh Valley, PA USA
Re: 2016 Election
This 1992 post mortem from the New York Times repeats the point about the vote being evenly split, and notes that Perot was pro-choice and had supporters that were less likely than average to be churchgoers:
THE 1992 ELECTIONS - DISAPPOINTMENT -- NEWS ANALYSIS An Eccentric but No Joke - Perot's Strong Showing Raises Questions On What Might Have Been, and Might Be - NYTimes.com
I don't see Trump appealing to very many Democrats, and his views aside from free trade are largely out of the GOP playbook, so I don't see Trump and Perot having much in common.
THE 1992 ELECTIONS - DISAPPOINTMENT -- NEWS ANALYSIS An Eccentric but No Joke - Perot's Strong Showing Raises Questions On What Might Have Been, and Might Be - NYTimes.com
I don't see Trump appealing to very many Democrats, and his views aside from free trade are largely out of the GOP playbook, so I don't see Trump and Perot having much in common.
Why would a lot of Republicans vote for him as a 3rd Party candidate? To show their displeasure with the "Elites" who they believe run the party and who won't promise to reverse any of Obama's initiatives, be they Obamacare, immigration/amnesty, or cutting back on what they see as a Regulation Nation and an ever-expanding and unresponsive federal government. Hillary looks safe, and God help us all from this most corrupt woman...gotta look to Bernie or Joe; or Jim, as an outside shot.
Last edited by FlaviusAetius; Jul 30th 2015 at 1:31 pm.
Jul 30th 2015 | 1:28 pm
#771
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 13,212
From: San Francisco
Re: 2016 Election
Trump appeals to Democrats who would like him to help them torpedo Republican chances in the general. I could see them voting for him in states with open primaries and even registering as Republicans in states with closed primaries, just to screw up the Republican nominating process. According to a poll released by Fox News, 30% of Republicans would never vote for him in the general. Other Republicans would vote for him as a 3rd Party candidate, so he hurts their chances either way, unless he drops out and throws his support to someone. Probably not going to happen, given his ego.
Jul 30th 2015 | 1:31 pm
#772
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 13,212
From: San Francisco
Jul 30th 2015 | 2:03 pm
#773
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,206
From: Lehigh Valley, PA USA
Jul 30th 2015 | 2:15 pm
#774
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 13,212
From: San Francisco
Re: 2016 Election
Actually, I see I would have to re-register as a Republican to do this in '16. Some presidential elections, the Republicans allowed "unaffiliated" voters to vote in their primary, but not in '08. Not sure about '12. The Democrats have consistently allowed folks like me to vote in their presidential primary.
Jul 30th 2015 | 2:22 pm
#775
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,206
From: Lehigh Valley, PA USA
Re: 2016 Election
Actually, I see I would have to re-register as a Republican to do this in '16. Some presidential elections, the Republicans allowed "unaffiliated" voters to vote in their primary, but not in '08. Not sure about '12. The Democrats have consistently allowed folks like me to vote in their presidential primary.
Last edited by FlaviusAetius; Jul 30th 2015 at 2:25 pm.
Jul 31st 2015 | 12:09 am
#776
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,206
From: Lehigh Valley, PA USA
Re: 2016 Election
Salon has a very interesting interview with Camille Paglia in which she analyses the Republican field and predicts that Hillary won't be in the field by debate time. It's worth a read.
“Ted Cruz gives me the williesâ€: Camille Paglia analyzes the GOP field — and takes on Hillary Clinton - Salon.com
“Ted Cruz gives me the williesâ€: Camille Paglia analyzes the GOP field — and takes on Hillary Clinton - Salon.com
Jul 31st 2015 | 2:54 am
#777
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,206
From: Lehigh Valley, PA USA
Aug 3rd 2015 | 4:53 am
#778
I love my brick!
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 9,304
From: Peachy
Re: 2016 Election
Word on the street is that Diamond Joe is going to throw his hat (and possibly his car keys) in the ring.
Aug 3rd 2015 | 5:48 am
#780
SUPER MODERATOR
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 89,088
Re: 2016 Election
Maybe the Dems have come to realise that Clinton may not be their best chance of keeping the White House.
Last edited by Jerseygirl; Aug 3rd 2015 at 5:50 am. Reason: Typo
