I took the original comment to refer to those living on the island.

You keep repeating this line about Perot as though it's fact, but there's a lot of evidence to suggest that it's false. Remember that Perot was vehemently anti free trade (remember NAFTA?) and also pro choice:

The Bushioisie Is Wrong: Ross Perot Didn’t ‘Cost’ G.H.W. Bush the White House in 1992 | The American Spectator

Did Ross Perot Elect Bill Clinton? | Race 4 2016

Ross Perot myth reborn amid rumors of third-party Trump candidacy | MSNBC

The fact is that we don't know for sure whether or not Perot cost GHWB the election. I've also seen the famous "Election Day Exit Poll" that claims Perot's vote came 38% from Clinton, 38% from Bush and 20% would have stayed home if Ross weren't on the ballot. First, that's not the only exit poll, just the one that gets all the play. And the 2012 exit polls showed just how terribly flawed they can be - same thing with the exit polls in the last UK election.

Second, there is no analysis of WHERE the lost votes came from. If Clinton racks up millions of extra votes in California and NY, that doesn't help him get elected. What is important is whether he wins or loses a bunch of states with very close votes. That's where Perot's voters may have helped Clinton win - we just haven't seen that analysis. Did a majority of those Perot voters in those close states come from disgruntled Republicans? Enough to throw those states to Bill?

Third, in a race where Clinton wins the popular vote by 43% Bush gets 37.5% and Ross gets 19%, that suggests that a majority of people weren't voting for Clinton. Considering that Ross campaigned relentlessly against Bush - and hardly mentioned Clinton - he must have hurt Bush more than Clinton.

So all of that gives some support to the view that Perot cost Bush the election. It probably can't be proved either way, but I'm comfortable with the position that he did. In any event, if Trump doesn't win the nomination and doesn't change his mind about a 3rd party run, we'll have a clear choice between Biden (Obama will see to that) and whoever ends up as the Republican nominee.

From my first link:

"On September 30 — the last day before Perot re-entered the race — Clinton led Bush by an 11-point margin, at 49-38 percent, with Perot taking six percent.

One day later — the day Perot re-entered the race — Clinton’s lead shrank to nine points, 47-38 percent, with Perot nudging up a point to seven percent.

Thirty days later, on November 1 — the last day the survey was fielded — Clinton’s lead had shrunk further, to just four points, at 40-36 percent over Bush, with Perot polling at 19 percent."

So in the time period between Perot re-entering the race and the last pre-election poll, the race narrowed significantly in Bush's favour with Clinton's support declining 9 percentage points and Bush's just 2 percentage points.

Now that certainly doesn't prove that Perot took his support from Clinton, but it certainly makes it harder to support the contention that he took it from Bush.

And from the second link:

"Not a single public opinion poll from the middle of July (when Perot dropped out the race) through the end of September (when Perot returned) gave Bush a lead over Clinton — not even in the immediate wake of the August ’92 GOP convention. In fact, Clinton’s average lead in this period was double-digits — and the race was not tightening at the time Perot jumped back in."

So I just don't see any support for the contention that Bush would have won sans Perot. Clinton consistently held a double digit poll lead the _entire time_ that it was a two-horse race.

As the wise men keep telling us, the only poll that counts is the vote count on election day. Without a close analysis of state by state results of the 1992 election you can't say that Perot didn't cost Bush the election.

Whether or not Perot cost Bush the election, the discussion was about the effect - or lack of effect - of 3rd party candidates on a presidential election in the US. In the 2000 race, the deciding state was Florida. Bush beat Gore by 547 votes. In that same state, Nader took about 97,000 votes - arguably all of them from Gore, since he was to the left of Gore, and certainly more than 548. In the same election Buchanan took about 3,700 votes from Jewish sections of Palm Beach County, Florida. Again, most of those voters would have to be considered prime Gore prospects because Buchanan would have been anathema to them (thank you confusing butterfly ballots) - again, Gore probably lost more than 547 votes there.

So you seized on a non-essential part of the argument - the projected vote totals, as reflected in a series of polls. Go to the 1912 election, where Teddy Roosevelt entered the race as a 3rd Party candidate and ensured the election of Woodrow Wilson, although Roosevelt and Taft's votes greatly exceeded Wilson's. This also shows the crucial role the Electoral College plays in our elections, where Wilson got 435 and the Republicans combine only got 96, although their vote total was much higher. That's what I was focusing on when discussing Perot.

Election of 1912
Candidates Party Electoral Vote Popular Vote
T. Woodrow Wilson (NJ)
Thomas R. Marshall (IN) Democratic 435 6,293,152
Theodore Roosevelt (NY)
Hiram W. Johnson (CA) Progressive 88 4,119,207
William H. Taft (OH)
James S. Sherman (NY)
Nicholas M. Butler (NY) Republican 8 3,486,333
Eugene V. Debs (IN)
Emil Seidel (WI) Socialist 0 900,369
Eugene W. Chafin (IL)
Aaron S. Watkins (OH) Prohibition 0 207,972

See also the scenario in Wikipedia where votes shift to Bush from Clinton. They could also be considered shifted from to Bush from Perot:

Scenario - a change of 300,166 votes (0.29% of national total) in ten states from Clinton to Bush results in a victory for Bush. Georgia - 6,858 votes (0.30%); New Hampshire - 3,279 votes (0.61%); Ohio - 45,317 votes (0.92%); New Jersey - 39,671 votes (1.19%); Montana - 5,151 votes (1.25%); Kentucky - 23,964 votes (1.61%); Colorado - 33,416 votes (2.13%); Wisconsin - 55,106 votes (2.18%); Louisiana - 41,293 votes (2.31%); Tennessee - 46,111 (2.33%). http://uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDE...992whatif.html

Those relatively few votes would have given Bush the election with 271 electoral votes.

And we can't say he did either, which is why your statements in this thread...

.. are groundless.

I'm not going to argue with you anymore, believe what you want.

Anyone see Stephen Colbert last night? I've been looking forward to his new show for months. Wasn't all that great, but - he had a great time with Trump, mocking the 'wall' effort, and also, I thought he showed flashes of his old brilliance when interviewing Jeb Bush. He really upset Bush's rhythm a few times, and made him look quite dull/nerdy. Not as good as 'the Colbert Report', from a political standpoint, but - I'm looking forward to watching his new show throughout the election period.

That's the best response you can muster when you get hoisted by your own petard?

John McAfee could really make this election a laugh.

It isn't already?

Wasn't he born in Scotland?

"Born: September 18, 1945 (age 69), Scotland, United Kingdom"

"McAfee was born in the United Kingdom on September 18, 1945 or 1946 in a U.S. Army base".

So unlike the Kenyan interloper he'll pass muster.

Well which year was it? Controversy!

Anyway I thought being born on the base made no difference. One presumes his dad was a usc deployed on base.

McCain was born in the Panama Canal zone, and Cruz is a naturally born Canadian... but for some reason this it doesn't seem to be that big of an issue this time around.

The birther nonsense was/is just coded racism imo.