Originally posted by Da Geezer
View Post
Not true. By all impartial surveys, Perot sucked an equal amount of overall votes from both sides, having a net effect of zero on the election. To say that the 16% voted against Bush alone is absurd. Perot was a small scale populist who gave Dems a chance to vote against Clinton and Repubs a chance to vote against Bush without voting for "the other guy". Perot was entertainment value with no effect on the election. He did show that a 3rd party can garner support above 15%.
2000 was a different story. In the 2000 presidential election in Florida, George W. Bush defeated Al Gore by 537 votes. Green Party Nader received 97,421 left wing votes. Pat Buchanan received 17,484 hard right votes and Harry Browne received 16,415 Libertarian votes. Do the math, Nader was responsible for Gore's defeat.
Comment