And: "As a former Clinton strategist, the dumbest myth I’ve had to deal with was that Ross Perot’s independent candidacy swung the 1992 election to Clinton. To believe that, one must ignore that Perot, like Clinton, was a change candidate; like Clinton, he was pro-choice, and like Clinton, Perot supported campaign finance reform."
Of course, Begala wants to believe that Clinton would have beaten Bush I in a 2-man race.
पोस्ट्स
४२ टिप्पण्या:
Most republican voters hate the Republican party. That is why Trump set records in every primary and election he participated in.
We recognize the GOPe has been a controlled opposition front for decades. This just became undeniably obvious when the Republican base wanted anyone but Mitt Romney in 2012 and the Oligarchs shoved him down our throat.
And after the GOPe went scorched earth on Hermain Cain, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich to get Romney the nomination they refused to attack Obama in any way and purposely threw the election.
And thank god Mitt Romney lost. We would have had cap and trade and amnesty if he won. Somehow wars and medicare part b are the only things republicans managed to get done when elected.
Haven't we put this myth to rest? While Perot drew 20% of the electorate, extensive follow up research showed that at best the 2nd choice for Perot voters broke 53/47 for Clinton. Only states that would have made a difference were a handful of low EC contests such as Montana, Kentucky, Nevada. The only significant outcome Perot's candidacy possibly influenced was Ohio.
All in all not nearly enough to change the outcome in the Electoral College.
Of course, Begala wants to believe that Clinton would have beaten Bush I in a 2-man race.
Just as he wants to believe any Biden loss will be due to RFK Jr.
I love how they call Nicole Shanahan an "entrepreneur". I know a lot of women look at getting a pile of cash in a divorce as entrepreneurial, but let's not confuse the Nicole Shanahans and MacKenzie Scotts of the world with those super hard working ladies on onlyfans.
one must ignore that Perot, like Clinton, was a change candidate
That really papers over the vast the differences between them.
They were not advocating for the same "change".
Papa Bush went from 56% of independents in 1988 to about 32% in 1992, while the Dems went from 42% to 37%. That was a huge GOP loss. Add in that Bush went from 6.3% of Democrats to 4.6% and it's pretty clear that Perot did pull away a lot of voters Bush needed- far more than any pain he caused Clinton.
Whenever anyone tries to convince me that Perot wasn't the proximate cause of Bush Sr's loss I think "pull the other one, it's got bells on it". I'm convinced that Trump was Bill Clinton's galaxy-brain plan to get Hillary the win, but it backfired when Trump actually won the primary instead of losing and stomping off to run third party.
I do not recall, and cannot find a source reporting, that Clinton favored campaign finance reform (although I did find a WaPo piece saying that he took federal campaign funds and then repeatedly violated the spending limits that came with the acceptance of such finds - perhaps his idea of "reform" was to allow himself to collect and spend unlimited amounts of money?).
G.H.W. Bush offended the right as the gun-hostile Ruby Ridge executor and as a Liz Cheney-like inside-the-beltway Deep State bureaucratic lizard (i.e., he was a former CIA director). Bush offended everyone concerned about the 1991 recession / those out of a job by going on vacation and literally fishing. He laid the groundwork for Trump's rise by sparking businessman Ross Perot (as in the source) and Pat Buchanan's transition from a media guy to a protectionist, working-class, conservative.
G.H.W. Bush lost because of his tone deaf "Vision Thing," and his inability to adapt. That era was much like the recent Never Trump era, but with the Dick Cheney Establishment Republican cohort in full control.
Begala is a Party mouthpiece with no original thoughts of his own. He cannot distinguish between a "myth" and his own wishful thinking. Clinton won due to right wing division alone.
Speaking to a woman yesterday at an Easter gathering. She is turned off by 45 and 46. First encountered RFK Jr at a program years ago in his environmental lawyer phase and was blown away. Has found the things he says appealing on multiple topics. But then he picked his vp. He squandered most of his goodwill with her.
He had to say "Trump or Reagan" because we know the answer when named Bush, which means we know the answer.
You can have the same political views and still syphon off votes from a like-minded opponent...
If RFK Jr. was on the primary ballot as a DEM, I was thinking of voting for him to keep his candidacy alive. But he's independent so it doesn't matter.
RFK Jr. completely lost me with this San Francisco liberal lawyer pick. She smokin' hot, but a nutbag liberal woman.
Maybe Dem voters like that and it will hurt Biden. Maybe. But I don't see the pick taking away votes from Trump.
Remember, all this speculation and pontification assumes the election will be clean. Odds are it won't be clean, so we might just be wasting our time. AZ, MI, WI, PA, GA, MN, NV...
Democrats have been using family members of famous Republicans in their campaigns forever. They even trotted out Ron Reagan Jr. to try to help Kerry.
Would a third party candidate named Kennedy has instant appeal to the Democrats?
Mr Wibble says one thing:
"Papa Bush went from 56% of independents in 1988 to about 32% in 1992, while the Dems went from 42% to 37%. That was a huge GOP loss. Add in that Bush went from 6.3% of Democrats to 4.6% and it's pretty clear that Perot did pull away a lot of voters Bush needed- far more than any pain he caused Clinton."
Michael says another:
"Haven't we put this myth to rest? While Perot drew 20% of the electorate, extensive follow up research showed that at best the 2nd choice for Perot voters broke 53/47 for Clinton. Only states that would have made a difference were a handful of low EC contests such as Montana, Kentucky, Nevada. The only significant outcome Perot's candidacy possibly influenced was Ohio."
They can't both be correct- or can they? Mr. Wibble is relying on statistics and past behavior. Michael is relying on surveys after the fact. There is a well known bias in polling- in that after the fact, far more people say they supported the winner. In sports or politics. In politics, if the winner proves a complete unpopular dud, then when that shows, follow up surveys will show almost no one voted for the dud...
So the surveys Michael reports on are definitely not definitive. There's no possible way to account for the winner bias. Past behavior can change, so Mr. Wibble's analysis, while more soundly based, is also not definitive.
Having said that- Perot ran for one and only one reason- to draw votes away from Bush and keep him out of the White House. . And he succeeded, putting Clinton in the White House. Is that an indisputable fact? No, but it is an unshakeable belief.
Unlike Trump, Perot never intended to win. He was a spoiler, pure and simple. If he had wanted into the White House- he'd have sought the nomination from one of the two major parties. As Trump did.
No one who siphons votes from The Real Trump will have any appeal at all to Trump supporters. And Trump haters will not be drawn to another Trump. A pop-up Reagan will not be appealing to Republicans either. Phony.
The real question is: who will replace Joe Biden at the convention? I think it should be Don Lemon. He is not an old, straight white man, he's a young, gay black man. But he's stupid and venal and happy to find out his positions from staff-prepared note cards. So, essentially, he's the same person as Biden, meaning that we would have continuity in The Regime but diversity in skin color. Perfect.
Perot was a gift for Clinton. Beyond that, he was a gift for Hillary Clinton. There's no reason to believe that Hillary would ever have become a Secy of State or Presidential candidate were it not for her connection to her husband. Even further, there's no reason to believe that Trump would have won against any other candidate besides Hillary. So, in a snakes and ladders way, the Perot candidacy was ultimately responsible for the Trump Presidency.....I have never believed in Divine Providence. Dice play God with the universe, but you don't always crap out.
Of course, Begala wants to believe that Clinton would have beaten Bush I in a 2-man race.
Not an effing prayer!
I dunno about 'instant appeal' but the Reagan Revolution in 1980 was a pre-Trump third-party take over of the GOP. As I keep reminding folks here, 'voodoo economics' was first applied to the Reagan economic vision by none other than George Herbert Walker Bush. Clinton and the DLC accomplished the same thing in 1992 to the Democrats.
Hear, hear Mr. Wibble.
Clinton won in 1992 with substantially less than half the popular vote. Perot voters didn't give a shit about anything Clinton advocated and despised him almost as much as they despised George Bush for caving into the Democratic demand for tax hikes.
I voted for Bush in '92 because I knew Clinton would turn out to be just the amoral, lecherous, demagogue he revealed himself to be. I knew a few Perot voters and tried to persuade them to support Bush. However, to a man, each replied he intended to "send a message" with his vote. What message? I inquired, but received no cogent answer. Evidently, the real message they sent was this: Some people are too fucking stupid to vote, as clearly demonstrated by the presidency of Joseph Robinette Biden.
Begala's analysis is so three months ago.
Perot was an early incarnation of what Trump is now: a sharp stick in the eye of the existing political order, the aim of which was and is to tell our current governing bodies to stop effing around, to stop being so obviously self-serving, to stop being so pervasively corrupt.
They still don't get it, do they? A French king famously said, "Apres moi, le deluge." That seems about the attitude of today's politicians. What is more likely is "after this, their worst nightmare."
Begala wants to believe a lot of things. Most of the morons who practice our secular religion believe many things that just aren't true.
As far as Clinton being a change agent--pull my other leg Paulie!
Begala wants to believe a lot of things. Most of the morons who practice our secular religion believe many things that just aren't true.
As far as Clinton being a change agent--pull my other leg Paulie!
The DNC MSM cheerleading cabal is afraid JFK Jr. will hire Sirhan Sirhan to cut pro Palestinian adds to drawr away anti Israel librul voters from Joebiden.
"Most republican voters hate the Republican party. That is why Trump set records in every primary and election he participated in."
Yeah, Begala misses the point entirely.
I'm just wondering if the Donk's truly don't understand what's going on or if they just think they can forever drown it out with hysteria and bullshit.
A blast from the 1990 Clinton Democrat past
https://youtu.be/KsNl217bz4s
Is this where Trump got his ideas on illegal border crossings?
Clinton was elected because Bush ignored his promise and Mario Cuomo made a bad decision.
Bobby Jr is not very popular with the current generation of the Kennedy and Shriver clans. The RFK Jr Super Bowl ad was stolen directly from JFK's 1960 TV ad with pictures and names changed. Bobby Jr apologized but he has pinned his ad to X.
"The decision of our brother Bobby to run as a third party candidate against Joe Biden is dangerous to our country," reads a post shared by RFK Jr.'s sister Rory Kennedy last fall. "Bobby might share the same name as our father, but he does not share the same values, vision, or judgment. Today’s announcement is deeply saddening for us. We denounce his candidacy and believe it to be perilous for our country." The message was signed by Kerry Kennedy, Joseph P. Kennedy II, and Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, in addition to Rory.
Unless Robert F. Kennedy, Jr gets the nomination as the Libertarian Party candidate, he has no chance to be on anywhere near enough state ballots to matter - and he simply is not a libertarian. Besides, selecting a VP candidate who is progressive through and through will not work for "Big L" party members - end of story.
"Most republican voters hate the Republican party. That is why Trump set records in every primary and election he participated in."
It was summed up in the Amazon best seller, Well...That Didn't Shrink the Government: An Abbreviated History of Voting Republican.
Nobody gives a fuck what Rory Kennedy says dipshit.
Gadfly,
The very fact that the other Kennedys don't want RFK to run is probably the clearest signal that he should run and that like-minded voters should vote for him.
How you like dem apples?
Let me know when there’s an article saying Biden’s refusal to provide Secret Service protection is a ”missile aimed” at RFK Jr.
By “nobody,” donald means donald.
There is no way one can be 100% certain, but every analysis I’ve ever read concludes that Perot’s candidacy did not alter the outcome.
Quaestor said...
I knew a few Perot voters and tried to persuade them to support Bush. However, to a man, each replied he intended to "send a message" with his vote. What message? I inquired, but received no cogent answer. Evidently, the real message they sent was this: Some people are too fucking stupid to vote, as clearly demonstrated by the presidency of Joseph Robinette Biden.
I am a Perot voter. We did send a message.
The problem is that we thought the GOPe was acting in good faith and would listen. This lesson was not learned until 2012 and the Romney nomination. After Romney purposely lost in 2012 the lesson was impossible to miss. After that enough people woke up and we were able to take over the primary in 2016.
The real stupid people are the people that learned nothing from the decades of treason and failure theater. These people supported Bush, Dole, McCain, Bush, Romney, Bush, Cruz, Desantis, Haley.
You are right. Some people are too stupid to vote.
Christopher B: "I dunno about 'instant appeal' but the Reagan Revolution in 1980 was a pre-Trump third-party take over of the GOP. As I keep reminding folks here, 'voodoo economics' was first applied to the Reagan economic vision by none other than George Herbert Walker Bush. Clinton and the DLC accomplished the same thing in 1992 to the Democrats."
100% true.
The shame of the 1980 race was Reagan buckling to the GOPe and GOPe suckups to select HW Bush as VP instead of the guy he really, instinctively, wanted most: Jack Kemp.
Kemp was very much an early Trump type: effortlssly and comfortably outgoing, crossing all racial and class lines, indefatigably optimistic, etc.
Words you would never have heard from Kemp: "Read my lips"...before sticking a knife in the back of republican base voters.
It amazes me that the GOPe and GOPe suckups claim Reagan as their own these days. The GOPe-ers hated Reagan and called him all the same names they call Trump.
Achilles you are wrong about De Santis. He is doing a great job as Governor and yes, I'm voting for Trump. I only hope is that if he wins and the Republicans regain both houses of Congress that he will put the blowtorch to the heels of the RINOs and the GOPe. Then all out jihad against the Dems and the Leftist loons. A shiton of them in prison will go along way to reversing the ills inflicted on the country by the far Left.
cubanbob said...
Achilles you are wrong about De Santis.
Points in favor of your opinion:
1. Desantis has signed a lot of bills passed by a Republican legislature.
2. ...
Points against your opinion:
1. Desantis Graduated from Harvard.
2. Desantis was a JAG.
3. Desantis was a member of the House in 2017-2018 where he helped Paul Ryan undercut Trump at every turn.
4. Desantis promised he wouldn't run during his gubernatorial campaign, then he ran.
5. Desantis called Trump supporters Listless Vessels.
6. Desantis was endorsed by all of the Republicans that stabbed Trump in the back.
7. Desantis raised record amounts of cash from a menagerie of open democrats, nevertrumps, and globalist swine.
8. Desantis Hired Jeff Roe.
9. Desantis clearly had no purpose running against Trump except for the vain hope the DOJ would take Trump out. He was obviously coordinating his campaign with the law fare.
10. Desantis locked Florida down during COVID.
Rory Kennedy said…
"The decision of our brother Bobby to run as a third party candidate against Joe Biden is dangerous to our country,"
So it’s dangerous to our country to run for president? Well, OK, then.
Barbara Bush stated that polling the week before the 92 election show late breaking movement to Bush, but then the Iran-Contra special prosecutor brought charges against Weinberger and others (this is supposed to be against DOJ policy) and until that happened they thought Bush would win.
Was Barbara Bush an objective person on this topic? No. Was Barbara Bush one of the few people that would have knows about such internal polling? Yes.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा