Revisiting Trump as Perot 2.0 (John Kerry, voters, candidacy, thought)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So I have been observing much of what has been going on without saying too much.
I have been watching Trump say things and the media saturate the airwaves with how Trump is racist... and how people are protesting.
I stated before that Trump is Ross Perot v2.0. Then I thought maybe he is for real upon following through and receiving the necessary delegates for the candidacy (which Perot did not follow through in trying to really win). Now I am thinking that yes, he is Perot 2.0 - some things are similar, but the strategy is different.
I am seeing this next five months as a continual attack on the senses of people who either are voting for Trump, or considering voting for Trump. And I am wondering if Trump is in on it. He has been around awhile - and although he can be different, I don't remember him saying stuff like this. He has never done anything racist, or never been involved with any racist group. He has been all about the green. But now, everything has suddenly changed.
We are getting CNN and others continuously covering Trump's remarks, and the coming so-called 100,000 people protest coming at the Rep convention - which I think is entirely staged if it occurs. But the point is to use the media to bombard the senses of people to feel shame at voting for Trump. That seems to be the strategy.
Meanwhile, most issues are off the table. Hilary's scandals, which are real legal issues (as opposed to Trump's talk) are off the table. We just get insults back and forth between Trump and Clinton. The issues need to be discussed and put at the forefront.
We are doing our country a disservice if emotions of shame and fear are the main reasons people vote (or not vote). We seem to be at a tipping point, and we absolutely need sober-minded people making decisions which benefits both themselves (first) and the well-being of the country (second).
I voted for Perot...twice. I will not be voting for Donald Trump.
Ross Perot never pandered to bigots.
He is Perot in that he is a rich outsider who has never before entered politics, and his position is that which is popular among the center-right. He is also Perot in that his goal (in my opinion) is to ease the skids for Clinton again.
Perot's job was to divide the vote on the right so that Clinton and his 43% of the vote would win. When Perot got too popular and eating into Clinton's vote - he quit. And then got back in. And he had a VP totally unfit for office.
What's different is this psychological tactic of shame and fear that Trump is allowing to occur, with the increasing media outcry and public protests. This is easing the skids for Clinton to become president.
We will see as time continues how Trump behaves. If these statements continue, there is no doubt in my mind that he is not interested in becoming president. Because if he really wanted to win, he would moderate his tone like everyone else does.
I haven't watched any cable news outlet in years. I don't see how any critically thinking adult could. But if this is the sort of thing they are coming up with now, instead or dealing with real relevant news, then there's no wonder that less than 1% of Americans watch them now.
I haven't watched any cable news outlet in years. I don't see how any critically thinking adult could. But if this is the sort of thing they are coming up with now, instead or dealing with real relevant news, then there's no wonder that less than 1% of Americans watch them now.
No - this is my opinion... not from the media.
Trump is not stupid. He knows how to get what he wants and he has a track record of being successful. It doesn't make sense that he would purposely continue to upset people like this if he really wanted to win the popular vote.
He is Perot in that he is a rich outsider who has never before entered politics, and his position is that which is popular among the center-right. He is also Perot in that his goal (in my opinion) is to ease the skids for Clinton again.
Perot's job was to divide the vote on the right so that Clinton and his 43% of the vote would win. When Perot got too popular and eating into Clinton's vote - he quit. And then got back in. And he had a VP totally unfit for office.
What's different is this psychological tactic of shame and fear that Trump is allowing to occur, with the increasing media outcry and public protests. This is easing the skids for Clinton to become president.
We will see as time continues how Trump behaves. If these statements continue, there is no doubt in my mind that he is not interested in becoming president. Because if he really wanted to win, he would moderate his tone like everyone else does.
It is beyond foolish to think a pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-tax increases, anti-free trade, pro-universal healthcare candidate split the vote on the right. Fact - on the positions, Perot was a center-left candidate. You can wallow in denial all you want, but to assert that there was some conservative clamor for a pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-tax increases, anti-free trade, pro-universal healthcare borders on delusional.
In November 1992, President Bush had an approval rating of 38%. You're delusional if you think he was ever going to win head-to-head against Clinton.
Speaking of which, notice how when Ross Perot left the race in July 1992, Clinton suddenly zoomed into the lead? That's because a majority of erstwhile Perot voters, looking for a candidate in Perot's absence, when to Clinton and not Bush.
Then notice how, in October when Perot jumped back into the race, Clinton's lead suddenly shrinks? That's because Perot was disproportionately drawing away Clinton voters.
Notice something else about that polling? In the months between July and October when Perot was not in the race, Clinton led Bush in every single poll. And it wasn't even close - Bush's best head-to-head poll had him losing by 9%. All the rest had him losing by double-digits. So much for the notion that but for Perot, Bush would have won.
Feel free to put forth a single exit poll showing that Perot voters preferred Bush to Clinton. Well? You can't. They don't exist. See, that's the problem. You insist that Perot was popular with conservatives, but you don't have a shred of evidence in support of that. Perot's political positions certainly don't support it. But, hey, feel free to explain why you're so convinced that millions of conservatives wanted a pro-choice, pro-gun control candidate who would raise their taxes and implement universal Medicare (or, ObamaCare on steroids)? You can't. Which is why you'll ignore this question. It destroys your claim, and you can't counter it.
You might then claim that Perot threw a bunch of states to Clinton, but which states? AR, you'll say. LA, too. And WV, no doubt. But here's the problem - Clinton won all of those now-conservative states with more than 50% of the vote (meaning that even if every last Perot vote in those states had gone to Bush, Clinton would still have won them - you understand math, right?). And if you add the 20 Electoral College votes in those states (at the time) with the 255 Electoral College votes (at the time) in the states that every single Democratic President has won since 1992 - even John Kerry, the worst of the Democratic candidates in those six elections - you get 275 Electoral College votes, six more than are needed to win the Electoral College.
In short, you've got nothing. Nada. Zip.
You know, one of the keys to winning elections is learning from past mistakes. Being bound and determined not to learn from history by clinging to feel-good rationalizations is counter-productive. You might want to think about that.
It is beyond foolish to think a pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-tax increases, anti-free trade, pro-universal healthcare candidate split the vote on the right. Fact - on the positions, Perot was a center-left candidate. You can wallow in denial all you want, but to assert that there was some conservative clamor for a pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-tax increases, anti-free trade, pro-universal healthcare borders on delusional.
In November 1992, President Bush had an approval rating of 38%. You're delusional if you think he was ever going to win head-to-head against Clinton.
Speaking of which, notice how when Ross Perot left the race in July 1992, Clinton suddenly zoomed into the lead? That's because a majority of erstwhile Perot voters, looking for a candidate in Perot's absence, when to Clinton and not Bush.
Then notice how, in October when Perot jumped back into the race, Clinton's lead suddenly shrinks? That's because Perot was disproportionately drawing away Clinton voters.
Notice something else about that polling? In the months between July and October when Perot was not in the race, Clinton led Bush in every single poll. And it wasn't even close - Bush's best head-to-head poll had him losing by 9%. All the rest had him losing by double-digits. So much for the notion that but for Perot, Bush would have won.
Feel free to put forth a single exit poll showing that Perot voters preferred Bush to Clinton. Well? You can't. They don't exist. See, that's the problem. You insist that Perot was popular with conservatives, but you don't have a shred of evidence in support of that. Perot's political positions certainly don't support it. But, hey, feel free to explain why you're so convinced that millions of conservatives wanted a pro-choice, pro-gun control candidate who would raise their taxes and implement universal Medicare (or, ObamaCare on steroids)? You can't. Which is why you'll ignore this question. It destroys your claim, and you can't counter it.
You might then claim that Perot threw a bunch of states to Clinton, but which states? AR, you'll say. LA, too. And WV, no doubt. But here's the problem - Clinton won all of those now-conservative states with more than 50% of the vote (meaning that even if every last Perot vote in those states had gone to Bush, Clinton would still have won them - you understand math, right?). And if you add the 20 Electoral College votes in those states (at the time) with the 255 Electoral College votes (at the time) in the states that every single Democratic President has won since 1992 - even John Kerry, the worst of the Democratic candidates in those six elections - you get 275 Electoral College votes, six more than are needed to win the Electoral College.
In short, you've got nothing. Nada. Zip.
You know, one of the keys to winning elections is learning from past mistakes. Being bound and determined not to learn from history by clinging to feel-good rationalizations is counter-productive. You might want to think about that.
If you read my second post - I said Perot got out precisely because he began siphoning off Clinton's votes - not according to Gallup polling, but according to their internal polling. That's the main reason I believe Perot was in the Clinton camp.
The whole point of linking Trump to Perot is to help Clinton win... again. The bullet points may be different because we are 24 years removed from Perot. The strategy may be different in that Trump is not running as a third party candidate. But my guess is that the goal is the same. Clinton won with 43%. Perot got 17%.
Again - I will note Trump's future behavior to see if he does the things to win the national vote.
In 1992, Ross Perot selected as his running mate retired Vice Admiral James Stockdale, a Medal of Honor recipient for his actions during his seven and a half years as a POW during the Vietnam War.
In 2015, Donald Trump mocked Senator John McCain, a Vietnam POW, saying that "he's not a war hero. He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who don't get captured." Do I need to tell you about John McCain's experience as a POW and what elevated him (imo) from simply being a guy who was captured?
The difference between Perot and Trump is that Perot actually had solutions and a bit of integrity to boot.
But at the end . . he acted completely crazy!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
