April 5, 2016

"Paul Ryan Is Running for President."

Jonathan Chait lays out the evidence. Ryan is in the position where he could make a "Sherman statement" and his statements have fallen short of that extreme (that you won't run if nominated and won't serve if elected).
Begged by conservative talk-show host Hugh Hewitt to save the party, Ryan demurred:
I do believe people put my name in this thing, and I say get my name out of that. This is, if you want to be president, you should go run for president. And that’s just the way I see it ... I think you need to run for president if you’re going to be president, and I’m not running for president. So period, end of story.
This statement is being reported as a firm denial of interest, but it should be understood in context. Ryan’s history is to acquire a reputation as lacking ambition even as he rockets up the ranks....

What’s more, the scenario under which Ryan would get the nomination is one in which the party has denied it to the candidate who received the most primary votes and to the candidate who received the second-most. The party’s primary task would be to defuse their rage and sense of betrayal....  Ryan is positioning himself as a peacemaker between the Trump and anti-Trump factions.
That is, the best way for Ryan to run is to have this appearance of not running.

In a similar doing-by-not-doing way, many of us here in Wisconsin today are voting for Paul Ryan by voting for Ted Cruz: "Wisconsin votes Tuesday for … Paul Ryan!"

64 comments:

David Begley said...

Althouse:

Glad to see you voted for Cruz. A Kasich vote is a wasted vote.

Nonapod said...

Yeah, right... I'll believe it when he announces. Although with how weird things have gotten, I'm not sure much could surprise me at this point. At any rate, I can't imagine the party foisting Paul Ryan on the electorate would go over that well.



traditionalguy said...

OMG. It's the Janesville Flash coming out of no where with nothing to offer except an innocent looking fresh face as he cuts entitlements which he really does not want to do any more than he wants to be President. He just is a loyal man to the Koch Family. And he will serve them well.

Bay Area Guy said...

Ryan is an honorable man. Rock solid on the 2nd Amendment, rock sold on taxes and on repealing Obamacare.

The challenge he faces as Speaker is the challenge of herding cats. It's messy and chaotic. He has made compromises which we don't like.

But still, if he can beat Hillary in the General, I'd be all in for Ryan.

Brando said...

If Ryan were the nominee, he'd destroy Hillary and hold both houses of Congress.

But he's not going to be nominated. The GOP isn't going to just take a mulligan on its primaries. They're not happy with Trump, but they're either stuck with him or they tell their voters that the past year and a half was for nothing.

Alexander said...

Ryan couldn't take Wisconsin when he was actually on the ticket, but he'll do it this time, just trust us!

cubanbob said...

This election is getting so crazy I can see both Trump and Sanders running as third and fourth party.

Nyamujal said...

Paul Ryan is a conservative with some actual ideas. He isn't reactionary and doesn't spend all his time talking about what he's opposed to. He's a worthy ideological adversary.
If the GOP manages to find its inner Jack Kemp (Ryan's early mentor) it'll remain relevant in the future as a viable alternative to liberalism. If they choose ethnic nationalism, isolationism, and adopt the reactionary politics of the European far right, they're doomed.

Qwinn said...

I don't think even the GOPe is delusional enough to try to push someone other than Trump or Cruz through. They'd lose the conservative base forever. I think they'll back Cruz because, as much as they hate him, they hate Trump even more.

Qwinn said...

I don't think Trump or Sanders will be able to pull off a third party run. Too many states have sore loser laws on the books that would prohibit it.

samanthasmom said...

Let's see. Would Paul Ryan satisfy many of the Trump supporters? No, I don't think so. Would Paul Ryan get some of the Cruz voters? Maybe. Would Paul Ryan have appeal to the independent voters? Did he the last time he ran? Not nearly enough. Will Paul Ryan do well with women? Maybe better than Trump. But not well enough running against Hillary Clinton. Will Paul Ryan attract the youth vote? Who's Paul Ryan? Will Paul Ryan attract the Social Security Club? Let me stop laughing, and I'll get back to you.

Freeman Hunt said...

Ryan! One can only hope.

Fritz said...

We could do worse. We have in the past, and we certainly will do so again.

Dan Hossley said...

So his evidence that Ryan is running is that there is no evidence that Ryan is running.

Tank said...

Ryan has voted for every big spending big gov't bill to come down the pike. He epitomizes the thing that 70% of the Rep primary voters are voting against. Go look at his actual record. Spend, spend, spend.

Ann Althouse said...

Who is Hillary most afraid of having to run against?

I say Ryan.

Ann Althouse said...

"So his evidence that Ryan is running is that there is no evidence that Ryan is running."

Correct.

It's like the dog that didn't bark.

Brando said...

"I don't think even the GOPe is delusional enough to try to push someone other than Trump or Cruz through. They'd lose the conservative base forever. I think they'll back Cruz because, as much as they hate him, they hate Trump even more."

For them, the benefit of going with Cruz is they won't alienate a lot of their conservative elements (religious right, libertarians, neocons and mainstream conservatives) even if he loses. It holds the rump of the party together for 2020, but also motivates conservative voters to the polls to help keep the congressional majority.

Nominating Trump threatens all of that--it risks a conservative third party movement as well as big congressional losses.

I think I get what the Trump fans mean by Trump threatening the "establishment"--it's just not in the sense of rich people losing their gravy train. He's threatening to cause massive downballot losses and a split in the GOP itself.

Fabi said...

p.s., Continuing Resolution

Hagar said...

"The conservative base" needs to get over itself.

Rumpletweezer said...

I'm not a Republican but I would think that Ryan passing a disastrous budget would kill any support from conservatives.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Maybe avote for Kasich s abetter way to vote for Paul Ryan. I think it depends upon the Congressional distuct you are in, and if Trump is likely to come in third there. (The statewide vote is probably safely non-Trump)

Sammy Finkelman said...

First, of course, there will be the Rules fight.

traditionalguy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
traditionalguy said...

Ryan picked to lose gracefully and not upset the DC Slush Funds that run through office of the GOP House Speaker and GOP Senate Majority Leader is a real thing.

Making the crazy Tea Party Pure Conservatives happy is a bottomless hole. They get Government checks too, or we take them away. And once the Hispanic Amnesty erupts, they will wither away to nothing but a memory of a bygone English speaking Gringo era and the Party million, billion, and trillionaires will live happily ever after with their choice of good Servants.

JRoberts said...

If I remember my history correctly, in 1952 the Republicans were being pulled at one end by the Dewey/Rockefeller wing of the party and at the other end by the Taft wing of the party.

At the convention the party selected former general Dwight Eisenhower, a war hero who could bridge the gap.

This year the Republicans need another Eisenhower to bridge the gap. I think Paul Ryan is a good man and one of the few adults in Washington, but he's no Eisenhower.

In today's fragmented culture who COULD be an Eisenhower?

shiloh said...

"Who is Hillary most afraid of having to run against?

I say Ryan."

Did you give it a lot of thought or are you flying by the seat of your pants ...

ok, Ryan is just better looking than the rest. Although once upon a time Rubio was your heartthrob. Jilted Marco.

Limited blogger said...

This year?

YoungHegelian said...

Ryan is positioning himself as a peacemaker between the Trump and anti-Trump factions.

And they say Trump is delusional....

If there's shenanigans at the convention, there won't be any peace to be made.

Achilles said...

People who support Ryan in this are delusional. For one he is open borders.

Full stop.

The only border he cares about is the robust wall he built around his robust house.

He didn't run. Last time he ran he lost his only debate to JOE BIDEN. He hasn't fought for anything ever. Let's make a short list of caves.

1. He is for open borders so this might be more of a betrayal.

2. His "radical" plan to balance the budget in 10 years grew government at 5% instead of 7% and relied on growth numbers that would make pension planners blush.

3. He passed the omnibus for Obama no fuss no muss.

If Ryan is nominated that is it for the Republican party. You will be lucky if the only result is the semi peaceful formation of a 3rd party.

R. Chatt said...

Cruel delusionism.

Ambrose said...

This could all be disinformation from the Cruz camp to get out the Wisconsin vote for him.

traditionalguy said...

Ryan has a talent. Who else can get himself elected Speaker of the House and President while never wanting either job and acting like a sincere 12 year old boy surprised by it all?

He gets an Oscar this year for lifetime achievements in the Theatrical Arts. It's called the Mickey Rooney Sincerety Award.

It will be presented by Reince Priebus because David Koch was too busy installing the next Speaker of the House to come.

Bay Area Guy said...

We've had many spoiler elections, where a 3rd party siphoned off votes and swung the election (Wallace in '68; Anderson in '80; Perot in '92, some would say Nader in '00).

In 1980, wacko GOP John Anderson got 7% of the vote, but mostly from liberals who couldn't stomach Reagan, but knew that Carter was terrible.

This isn't new. We can deal with it.

But there hasn't been a contested convention in a while. This will freak people out a bit, because it's new to them. They think the primary votes mean something, not the delegate votes. More so, after the 1st ballot, the delegates are generally free agents, and can pick whom they want. There will be lots of horse-trading and deal-making. There may be 15 ballot votes until 3 in the morning, before someone gets a majority.

So, it is plausible that Trump is denied 1237 delegates before the convention, and someone other than Trump, Cruz or Kasich eventually gets the nomination. It's not likely though.

Qwinn said...

I agree that if the convention kicks out Cruz and nominates Ryan instead, they will have lost me permanently.

It's the Establishment's turn to hold their f'ing nose and vote for what the base clearly wants (and no, they don't clearly want Trump - IMO Trump's numbers are what they are because of crossover votes in open primary states). If they can't do that once in even 30 years, then to hell with them, and I'll take my chances with a third party.

Brando said...

"We've had many spoiler elections, where a 3rd party siphoned off votes and swung the election (Wallace in '68; Anderson in '80; Perot in '92, some would say Nader in '00)."

I don't think Wallace or Anderson swung their elections--Wallace voters more likely would have backed "law and order" Nixon over "civil rights champion" Humphrey, and Anderson likely took as many voters away from the GOP as he took from the Dems. Perot as I recall took about equally from both sides (conservatives who weren't big fans of Bush, and people who wanted "change" but didn't want Clinton). Nader did, but only because that was such a close election that his small number of votes (who were basically all on the Left) would have been Gore votes.

I think odds are Trump gets nominated even if he only has a delegate plurality at the convention. But if the GOP does throw out the primary results, they're sending a signal that they are accepting loss in November because the party is split anyway, and they just don't want to be associated with Trump as it happens.

Bill Peschel said...

The only problem with Trump, really, is that a lot of people hate him. They'd rather sit at home than vote against Hillary.

Anyone else and the GOP has a shot at winning, from a close race (if they don't bring up her dirty past and present) to a landslide.

Then there's the four-year problem. Do you really want to listen to Trump for four years? Or Hillary?

(Personal note: When I worked in the newsroom, CNN was on constantly, and I grew to loathe the sight of Bush as much as I do Obama. Take that for what you will.)

Achilles said...

Bill Peschel said...
"The only problem with Trump, really, is that a lot of people hate him. They'd rather sit at home than vote against Hillary."

Not our sort dear.

machine said...

let's just hope he picks the quitta-from-wasilla as running mate...

Gusty Winds said...

I don't believe Paul Ryan will be viewed as some type of GOP savior of the party if the millions of people have their Trump and Cruz votes cast aside this summer.

Ryan might be ambitious and like to play hard to get, but a move like this for him would be crazy.

I think the Democrats would scream, "see...we told you the GOP doesn't respect voters" as they would woo Trump and Cruz crossovers to win the general.

Plus there are stories that he will face a GOP primary challenger this fall.

Unknown said...

how crazy is this! give the gop base an immigration lightweight to win the white house. guaranteed loss! ryan could not even secure Wisconsin for Romney. and this is our savior. the only person who can save the gop this year is trump. cruz would get leveled by the media. wait until everyone learns that Heidi works for goldman--as the media will reiterate every day. we have learned nothing apparently.

MikeR said...

I'm good with Ryan.
"ryan could not even secure Wisconsin for Romney" - Yeah, against Barack Obama. Against Hillary Clinton is a different matter. Most Republican candidates have a good chance; actually, all of them except Trump.

MikeR said...

"see...we told you the GOP doesn't respect voters"
Not at all. We GOP voters are the ones who aren't getting a say. Idiotic primary system is shutting us out, giving the nomination to some clown that 35% like and 65% hate. You want to give me a say? Have a nationwide primary to pick two candidates, then a run-off.

JAORE said...

In 1980, wacko GOP John Anderson got 7% of the vote, but mostly from liberals who couldn't stomach Reagan, but knew that Carter was terrible.


I voted for Anderson. But it was because I lived in Idaho, worked late and Carter conceded before I had a chance to vote.

My little velvet monkey wrench.

Qwinn said...

"wait until everyone learns that Heidi works for goldman--as the media will reiterate every day. we have learned nothing apparently."

Who gives a crap who she works for? And as for the loan they're trying to make a big deal of, it was a perfectly normal loan with collateral like anyone else would get. No hint of any special favors involved. Why would anyone who isn't already socialist give a crap?

mccullough said...

Hillary would beat Ryan in Wisconsin.

So what states could Ryan flip with his agenda of tax cuts for the rich, build up the military even more than Hilary so there would be even bigger wars than Hillary will launch? Is he going to run on repealing Obamacare and replace it with one of his chalkboard ideas that receives the stamp of approval from some think tank? Is he going to promise that his economic policies will create even more low paying jobs in fast food and retail so that people can string together 3 part time jobs and still not have health insurance? Or tout the many opportunities for combat jobs with good medical benefits that you will need that his military buildup will create? Or maybe he'll encourage everyone to start their own business. So if you're unemployed or working 3 part time jobs, just call yourself an entrepreneur to make yourself feel better. Or if all else fails, marry someone from a rich family like Paul Ryan did.




mccullough said...

Would Paul Ryan simultaneously run for President and his House seat like he did for VP? He would, which tells you what you need to know about the guy. He's a political lifer who doesn't believe I term limits because hanging out in DC and coming up with useless white papers based on inane assumptions is much better than working for a living. Besides, his wife has family money.

Gahrie said...

Ryan pissed away his chances at leading the conservative movement when he cut a budget deal with the Democrats immediately after becoming Speaker. He is no longer acceptable to a large number of Republican voters.

If the Republican nominee is not Trump or Cruz, Hillary wins, the Senate flips, and Republicans lose house seats.

Bay Area Guy said...

@Brando,

I don't think Wallace or Anderson swung their elections--Wallace voters more likely would have backed "law and order" Nixon over "civil rights champion" Humphrey

No, my friend! Well, maybe:) Anderson probably didn't swing the election, just turned it into a rout for Reagan. Perot, I believe, did swing it to Clinton, but that is debateable.

Wallace absolutely did swing the election to Nixon in '68. All those Dems voters would have voted for Humphrey and some southern VP, heck, even possibly Wallace. That was the Dem template. Northern Prez, Southern VP. Incidentally, those folks swung back to Carter in 76.

Here, we don't have regional loyalties and factions -- we have disaffected Trump supporters, who don't like the GOP establishment, and, seem to be flirting with a "If not Trump, stay home" position, which I don't much like.

My standard, from the beginning is that Hillary and the Dems are so bad, that any GOP ticket is better. If that means voting for Trump, I will do it. But, it also means, if Ryan or his supporters can finagle the delegate votes his way, I will support that as well.

The harder question is, Who has the best shot in the General, given all this wrangling? Trump seems to be faltering a bit. At this stage, I honestly don't know.

Bay Area Guy said...

@JAORE,

"I voted for Anderson. But it was because I lived in Idaho, worked late and Carter conceded before I had a chance to vote. "

Good honesty! And thank you for that. Helped Ronnie get a mandate.

Outta curiosity, For whom will you be voting this election? Myself, I'm going "Not Hillary" so it's not very sexy.

Gahrie said...


In today's fragmented culture who COULD be an Eisenhower?


John Bolton

Qwinn said...

"In today's fragmented culture who COULD be an Eisenhower?

John Bolton"

Heh. That's probably the ONLY non-candidate choice they could make that I could get behind, actually.

AJ Lynch said...

"Ryan skyrockets up the (GOP) ranks".

Geez that is not real impressive. I'd compare it to being the best player on the 1962 NY Mets.

Mike Sylwester said...

I have moved from Walker to Trump to Cruz.

I would be happy to move to Ryan on the condition that he convincingly advocate an immigration platform written by Jeff Sessions.

Furthermore, I think that the Republican Party could unite around a Ryan-Sessions ticket.

Brando said...

""ryan could not even secure Wisconsin for Romney" - Yeah, against Barack Obama. Against Hillary Clinton is a different matter. Most Republican candidates have a good chance; actually, all of them except Trump."

I'll also note that the bottom of the ticket has less chance of carrying their home state than the top of the ticket can. And I agree that Obama was a much better politician than Hillary with far fewer negatives.

"Anderson probably didn't swing the election, just turned it into a rout for Reagan. Perot, I believe, did swing it to Clinton, but that is debateable."

For those two it's hard to say without exit poll results--of course in both cases the third party voters knew that they may be enabling one of the two major party candidates to win, and chose to vote third party anyway, so most likely they wouldn't have voted if their candidate wasn't on the ballot.

"Wallace absolutely did swing the election to Nixon in '68. All those Dems voters would have voted for Humphrey and some southern VP, heck, even possibly Wallace. That was the Dem template. Northern Prez, Southern VP. Incidentally, those folks swung back to Carter in 76."

Not sure about that--the "North/South" unity of the Dems was hit hard with the civil rights act, when the deep south for the first time went GOP (in 1964, actually the only states outside AZ that Goldwater got). In '68 with all the division over hippies and war and race riots, I don't think Humphrey (who had a well known civil rights record and no southerner as a running mate to balance) would have gotten the Wallace votes from Nixon who ran on the law and order platform and the "peace with honor" platform in Vietnam. Nixon did get most of those votes back four years later. Carter pulled southerners back in '76, but he had a reputation as a moderate, southern Governor (as did Clinton in '92) but I don't think that suggests Humphrey would have had that success.

"The harder question is, Who has the best shot in the General, given all this wrangling? Trump seems to be faltering a bit. At this stage, I honestly don't know."

It may be we're out of good choices to win in November, because this primary has been spent boosting everyone's negatives and dividing up the GOP coalition. The question now might be "who at least has a decent shot at winning" or even "who might lose but at least not lose Congress while they're at it". This, when Hillary was so beatable.

Trump as I've noted before, burns his bridges and continues making unnecessary enemies, and turning his fights with his rivals from repairable spats to nasty feuds that make it unlikely they can come together later (would you make up with someone who sent out a nasty picture of your wife, mocking her? Would you be able to face your wife again after making up with a guy like that?). His message to anti-Trump Republicans is "you're all awful, now agree you're awful and join me". Besides that, he has no message discipline, no coherence to what he stands for, and no interest in even reading up on any of the issues of the campaign. He is on pace to be destroyed this fall.

There's a small chance he can win, if major events intervene--a crisis, basically--but even then his erraticism can be used by Hillary (who will play the "calm, experienced" card against him).

Cruz also has a hard road if he were the nominee--he'd have to pull the GOP together, and with his reputation it doesn't sound like he can do that. He'd also have to sell his program to the middle, which is something he hasn't even tried to do before. But he seems sharp and understands retail campaigning, and maybe he can pull that off. I'd give him better odds than Trump, because at least he wouldn't have to prove himself to the Right.

wildswan said...

A lot of people voting - a lot. The line in my little village is always 20 minutes long except when it's thirty. Always people registering. No one wearing buttons, no lawn signs as Prof. Althouse pointed out, no discussions in the line. Just the long hoodie line - whatever it means.

What does it mean? To me, it means, basically, that people have to stop hunching over their computers and working out pathways to the nomination for improbable candidates; people have to look around. Millions are without work, millions are doing part-time work. Manufacturing and construction are not our number 1 and 2 employers as they were in 2008 - eight years ago. This is a huge social change and a huge disaster and only Donald Trump speaks to it albeit indirectly by saying he will stop immigration. (Because unrestricted immigration is making all the job losses worse.) So if you suppress him you are suppressing the only voice millions have - that won't work. Media people seem to think that if they call Trump supporters racist-rednecks then they don't have to ask what the RR want and why. The RR want jobs and folded in with them are the blacks whose unemployment figures are double digit even under Obama's false Labor Department calculations. The RRs are not RRs - that's just a way to make people feel OK about not listening. No matter who gets elected, attention must be paid to globalization's victims - red and yellow, black and white they had better become precious in some politician's sight. And don't steal the convention or the election from them. Just don't.

So, Ted Cruz, be brilliant and pay attention to them. And Paul Ryan, don't get into this.

Birkel said...

Wait! Did mccullough just try to moby the thread?

Well now I'm depressed and will sit home to watch President Hillary take office.

/sarc

Sammy Finkelman said...

I think you need to run for president if you’re going to be president, and I’m not running for president.

I think the meaning of that is that Paul Ryan believes it is not possible to draft someone for that spot.

These days, there are certainly some legal complications, (required financial disclosuers forms, campaign committees) and political complications (for Vice President at least) that there weren't in 1952, when Adlai Stevenson was drafted by the Democrats, or in 1968 when drafts were proposed.

In 1968 some laws were passed putting Presideential candidates on the ballot for primaries in soem states even if they didn't apply.

Too much is now under the control of the candidates. I think that's very bad.

Bruce Hayden said...

One thing that Ryan pointed out, that everyone here is missing/ignoring, is that he would have to give up his Speakership to run. And, one bird in the hand is better than two in the bush.

Still, a lot above have pointed out the salient facts. No matter how justified he was, Ryan lost a lot of the conservative vote by passing the Dem budget/CR, which essentially extended the 2009 "Stimulus" budget as the baseline for one more year. The baseline that had Obama double the national debt in his first 7 years on office. And, yes, they voted to fund ObamaCare, while continuing defunding the military (apparently, Marines are having to raid museums to get parts for their planes right now, etc.) As I said, he may have had the best reasons for giving into the Democrats there, but conservatives/Tea Party elected a majority in the House, and in return, the House, under Speaker Ryan, appears to have sold them out to the beltway establishment.

And, yes, a lot of Republicans (and Independents) are not going to vote for a Republican nominee whom the establishment slips in. They look at it as cheating - Trump and Cruz worked hard, played by the rules, and the establishment slips in their guy after the convention (intentionally) deadlocks? Democrats don't care about fighting fair (and, hence their use of unelected (by caucus or primary) Superdelegates, as well as 33 Dem state parties essentially taking money raised by the Hillary campaign, in trade for locking in their Superdelegates). But, Republicans are big on playing fair (which is one reason that they always get in trouble dealing with Democrats, who only do so when it is advantageous). And, the establishment sliding in their nominee after all the primaries and caucuses is just unfair.

Bruce Hayden said...

Let me quickly add to my last point. My guess is that the reason that Ryan and the Republicans in Congress caved on the budget is that they didn't want a government shutdown in an election year. And, the Democrats, starting at Obama, and working down, through Schumer, Reid, Pelosi, etc. likely repeatedly made the point that the Republicans would be crucified for it. (But, of course, many/most of the govt. workers laid off are Democrats, and if the Republicans could credibly threaten no back pay for the time laid off during a shutdown, except for the military, then the Dems would likely back down real quickly).

Sammy Finkelman said...

Bruce Hayden said...4/5/16, 5:48 PM

One thing that Ryan pointed out, that everyone here is missing/ignoring, is that he would have to give up his Speakership to run.

Why, and when? He didn't have to give up anything when he ran for Vice President and could also run for re-election to the House. Is he talking about running for the nomination before the convention? (As Speaker, he is Chairman of the convention)

Sammy Finkelman said...

@Bay Area Guy and Brand re: spoilers.

In 1948, the Democratic Party split 3 ways.

States Rights (Dixiecrat) candidate Strom Thurmond cost the Democratic Party South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, plus one faithless elector from Tennessee, for a total of 39 Electoral votes, and "Progressive" (pro-Communist in foreign policy) Henry A. Wallace cost the Democratic Party New York (47) and probably Connecticut (8) by turning them over to Dewey, for a total of up to 55 Electoral votes, or a grand total of 94 Electoral votes lost to splits, and yet Dewey did not defeat Truman.

Truman carried Ohio by a small , small, margin but he would have won even without its 25 Electoral votes, even though he also lost Pennsylvania (35) and New Jersey
(16)

poker1one said...

So Ryan is a conservative even though he gave the Democrats more than they thought possible with the omnibus continuing resolution. Everything and more.

As an update, Trump won in Ryan's district yesterday. The wall around Ryan's house didn't impress the people who know him best. Is there a primary challenger out there?

Any brokered convention that doesn't include Trump or Cruz is a loser for the Republicans.

Trump in a third party run is a loser, Trump in a sticker campaign is not.

Go Trump! Go long sidewalk chalk.

Achilles said...

Brando said....


"No, my friend! Well, maybe:) Anderson probably didn't swing the election, just turned it into a rout for Reagan. Perot, I believe, did swing it to Clinton, but that is debateable."

Bush the first swung the election to Clinton. If he hadn't caved to Democrats and raised taxes he would have won handily among other transgressions.