As of 2015, he is the last 3rd party/independent candidate to have been on the national ballot for POTUS. For those of you who were around in 1992 and remember this campaign, what exactly was it about Ross Perot that got him onto the national ballot in the first place? how do you think he did in his speeches and debates? what were his main political views? what separated him from Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton? why do you think he lost? why do you think that there have been no independent/3rd party candidates added to the national ballot since then? what do you think it would take to get a 3rd party/independent candidate back onto the presidential ballot?
Pat Buchanon and Ralph Nader in 2000.
Nader claims to have helped Gore lose the election, while Buchanon and the Palm Beach butterfly ballot actually did help elect Bush 43.
As for Perot, his big thing was the deficit, something no one wanted to hear about in a recession.
Perot was a silver tongue, enough said.
Perot gave a speech in 1991 or 1992 to the National Press Club in which he roasted the two major parties for ignoring the deficit. That's the first time I saw him, and it was before he became a candidate.
And here it is!
http://www.c-span.org/video/?25063-1/ame...cal-system
That impressed me, because I agreed that the deficit was the elephant in the room and the two parties were refusing to say anything about it. And apparently a lot of other people were impressed, too, because midway through the campaign he was neck and neck with Clinton and Bush, in a statistical tie.
But, the reality of a major political campaign with all the scrutiny was too much for him. He wasn't cut out to be a politician. He couldn't round up anyone to be his running mate, so he wound up with Stockdale, and then he withdrew unexpectedly, citing some sort of conspiracy to ruin his daughter's wedding. Then he got back in! But by then, his brand was ruined and all he did was syphon off votes from Bush (I think) and Clinton got elected with 43% of the vote.
I vote Independent candidates often because a two-party system leaves us to either vote the lesser of two evils or straight party. There need to be more voices in politics IMO.
I doubt that an Independent candidate will win POTUS before America falls, though.
Unless another billionaire decides to run 3rd party which they likely won't, I think Perot will be the last real example of a 3rd party candidate "challenging the system." Which is a shame because I refuse to vote for a Republican or Democrat.
It was the ears. Had to have been the ears.
Quote:As of 2015, he is the last 3rd party/independent candidate to have been on the national ballot for POTUS. For those of you who were around in 1992 and remember this campaign, what exactly was it about Ross Perot that got him onto the national ballot in the first place? how do you think he did in his speeches and debates? what were his main political views? what separated him from Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton? why do you think he lost? why do you think that there have been no independent/3rd party candidates added to the national ballot since then? what do you think it would take to get a 3rd party/independent candidate back onto the presidential ballot?
I felt he wouldve been a good president but people were too afraid of change and felt obligated to vote for Democrat or Republican parties at the time, not to mention he wasnt charasmatic like Clinton.
His ideas and staff were taken in by Clinton and he used some of it to better the economony so for that we should all be thankful.
Perot was a hoot to watch with his charts and graphs, and his "tinker under the hood" and "giant sucking sound" comments. But, in the end, he was just too nuts to carry the election. He was a gaffe machine throughout the election including referring to blacks as "you people" at an event. The guy spent millions to buy time on the major networks where he made his case using these charts and graphs to talk about the economy and what he'd do to fix the deficit. At one point before dropping out of the race, he was actually polling as the frontrunner.
It turned out the only reason he really got into the race was to assure that Bush lost the election. He had a personal beef with the Bush family going back decades, so he made it his mission to undermine #41, and he did enough to split the vote in the election to swing it to Clinton. When it was revealed that he'd paid someone to privately investigate the Bush family, it was one factor in why he dropped out of the race before getting back in later. Perot got almost 20% of the vote in the general election, taking almost all of that from Bush, who ran just a horrid campaign in 1992.
The interesting thing about his campaign was the fact that he really didn't do the traditional campaigning. He did a few rallies, but he would only attend them if it was only his supporters in the audience, so he didn't hit the campaign trail and do the kind of grass roots campaigning most politicians do when running for office. He felt more comfortable doing interviews, and doing his little infomercials, and it certainly got him a lot of attention.
He kept the debates entertaining. Unfortunately, his running mate was just awful in his only debate, leaning heavily on his experience in running the Vietnam war which probably wasn't the wisest approach to take considering how unpopular that war was. It's tough to make Dan Quayle look more competent, but Stockdale managed to accomplish that feat.
Quote:Perot was a hoot to watch with his charts and graphs, and his "tinker under the hood" and "giant sucking sound" comments. But, in the end, he was just too nuts to carry the election. He was a gaffe machine throughout the election including referring to blacks as "you people" at an event. The guy spent millions to buy time on the major networks where he made his case using these charts and graphs to talk about the economy and what he'd do to fix the deficit. At one point before dropping out of the race, he was actually polling as the frontrunner.
It turned out the only reason he really got into the race was to assure that Bush lost the election. He had a personal beef with the Bush family going back decades, so he made it his mission to undermine #41, and he did enough to split the vote in the election to swing it to Clinton. When it was revealed that he'd paid someone to privately investigate the Bush family, it was one factor in why he dropped out of the race before getting back in later. Perot got almost 20% of the vote in the general election, taking almost all of that from Bush, who ran just a horrid campaign in 1992.
The interesting thing about his campaign was the fact that he really didn't do the traditional campaigning. He did a few rallies, but he would only attend them if it was only his supporters in the audience, so he didn't hit the campaign trail and do the kind of grass roots campaigning most politicians do when running for office. He felt more comfortable doing interviews, and doing his little infomercials, and it certainly got him a lot of attention.
He kept the debates entertaining. Unfortunately, his running mate was just awful in his only debate, leaning heavily on his experience in running the Vietnam war which probably wasn't the wisest approach to take considering how unpopular that war was. It's tough to make Dan Quayle look more competent, but Stockdale managed to accomplish that feat.
Quayle and Stockdale was Dumb and Dumber.
Quote:Quayle and Stockdale was Dumb and Dumber.
Yup.