She actually has a point about Ross Perot influencing the 1992 election in Clinton's favor, but of course she'll never give him credit for anything (being the "serial rapist" that he's supposed to be in her eyes, referring to Clinton of course).
As for everything else in this story, it's just more of the same.
(Oops, forgot this one also - my bad.)
3 comments:
Her point really isn't so solid. Exit polls in 92 showed that Perot split the vote evenly between those whose second choice was Clinton and those whose second choice was Bush. Exit polls in 96 showed that he took more votes from would-be Clinton supporters. Electoral analyses have also shown Perot wouldn't have tipped the electoral map in Bush's favor if he were out of the race. So, by the numbers, his absense from the vote count wouldn't have meant a Bush victory. (Actually the exit polls asked who would people vote for if they thought Perot could win, and Perot would have won with 33%)
You might try to make an argument that he influenced the 92 race just because his early presence raised doubts about Bush's presidency, despite what exit polls showed about final voter alleigances. But its interesting that Bush lobbied for Perot to be in the presidential debates because he thought it would hurt Clinton: when Perot dropped out of the race, Clinton's poll numbers increased.
This goes against all accepted wisdom doesn't it? Well, for those paying attention at the time, Perot had appeal for centrists, and swing voters were for years called Perot voters. It should be common sense. The argument 'Perot was a spoiler and caused Bush to lose' didn't even come around until around 1995, with Republican spin.
I don't know why I'm bothering posting this comment to your blog. Years ago when Perot was still involved in politics, I would have to argue all the data to Republicans. I guess I think its sad that everyone including liberals take this myth for granted.
btw, I don't like Ann Coulter, but find it funny when her more extreme opponents don't get her or don't understand when she's joking. ie. people heckling her and believing her a bigot, which if you know how to read between the lines in everything she says is obviously not true. Getting people's reactions like that I guess is her point, I just think she's more a negative presence in politics.
I guess I kind of bought the Repug line on Perot without knowing it or researching it the way you did. The big lie from that era that I've exhausted myself trying to refute - and one which I see and hear constantly - is that former PA governor Bob Casey Sr. was denied the chance to speak at the Democratic convention in '92 because he was anti-choice, when in reality he was denied the opportunity merely because he didn't endorse Clinton for president, and the practice of denying someone at the convention because they won't support "the chosen one" is as old as politics itself.
As far as any "humor" in anything Coulter has to say, I find bilious invective and absolutely nothing else. Anyone who gives her the time of day, even under the feeble pretext of considering her garbage to be "opinion only," has a problem with reality.
I'm glad you took the time to pass this along. Thanks.
I was about to explain that I was a Perot voter and well left of center, having voted for Jesse Jackson in the previous primary. Perot looked more liberal than Clinton on social issues (and didn't diss Sista Soulja), and he explained deficits and national debt convincingly. I've never believed the conventional wisdom that Perot put Clinton into office, and I was about to subjectively state that opinion--but anonymous presented the objective facts first. Thanks, A!
Post a Comment