Search This Blog

Wednesday, January 27, 2016

Donald Trump and Ross Perot

George H.W. Bush lost to William Jefferson Blyth III—AKA "Bill Clinton"—in the 1992 Presidential election. The winners write history of course, so the current political thinking is that Ross Perot's participation in the 1992 election was insignificant. Ross Perot got 19% of the popular vote. Current main stream media "thinkers" conclude that an equal number of Democrats and Republicans—as well as independents—voted for Ross Perot. They claim that his one-note message that our current leaders are bankrupting the country found equal footing on both sides of the aisle.
On November 3, Bill Clinton won the election to be the 42nd President of the United States by a wide margin in the Electoral College, receiving 43 percent of the popular vote against Bush's 37.5 percent and Perot's 18.9%. It was the first time since 1968 that a candidate won the White House with under 50 percent of the popular vote. Only Washington, D.C. and Clinton's home state of Arkansas gave the majority of their votes to a single candidate in the entire country; the rest were won by pluralities of the vote.

President Bush's 37.5% was the lowest percentage total for a sitting president seeking re-election since William Howard Taft in 1912 (23.2%). The 1912 election was also a three way race (between Taft, Woodrow Wilson, and Theodore Roosevelt).
Okay, so a century of elections and only twice did the winner not receive a majority of the votes. If you believe that Ross Perot didn't allow Clinton to win then you must believe that as many or more democrats and left-leaning-independents voted for Ross Perot as Republican and right-leaning independents voted for Ross Perot. My feeling is that the conservative vote was split equally between Ross Perot and George H.W. Bush. I don't know if Bill was lucky or clever. What I think, is that Hillary is following her husband's playbook. We won't know whether that's true until Trump loses the Republican nomination and begins an independent run. At that point we will know.

Trump in answer to a question asking whether he's ready to reassure Republicans that he will run as a Republican and will not run as an independent should he lose the nomination, answers that he is "ready to reassure." He just hasn't done it yet. Notice please what he says, and not what you assumed. Watch the following video a few times if necessary. Donald Trump's boycott of the Fox debate on Thursday represents two things. The first is an absolute refusal to go along with the rules of the contest. If somebody tries to change the rules mid-game that makes that person a losing A-Hole who only wants to change the rules because he's losing. Do you think that somebody who refuses to debate on the agreed upon network and timeslot and instead uses his money and celebrity to host a "fundraising event" simultaneously, is the kind of person who will just give up if he loses the Republican nomination? The second thing his boycott represents, is his debate ineptitude. He's not good at it. He doesn't enjoy it. He knows if he gets a tough policy question he'll be seen as clueless and foolish, thereby ruining his chances. So far he's been dealt either softball questions, or the kind of questions that fall within his own specialty which is finance and economics. What will he answer when the questions are on foreign policy? Let's look back a bit and see what happened when George W. Bush took some foreign policy questions in the 2000 election, shall we?
George W Bush had definitely not been briefed for all the questions a local TV interview fired at him on the campaign trail. The Republican frontrunner in the United States presidential elections was subjected to a little foreign policy quiz he obviously did not enjoy.

The BBC's Nick Miles reports: "One out of four, hardly impressive" Asked by the reporter of a Boston television station to name four international statesmen recently in the news, Mr Bush got 25% right - if you consider first names a mere luxury.

First off, Andy Hiller, political reporter for WHDH-TV in Boston, Massachusetts, wanted to know whether the potential next president of the US could name the president of Chechnya.

Mr Bush: "No, can you?"

Instead, Mr Hiller fired off his second question. "Can you name the president of Taiwan?"

Bush: "Yeah, Lee." His score so far: 50%.

But then came the crunch question: "Can you name the general who is in charge of Pakistan?"

Mr Bush needed a breather. "Wait, wait, is this 50 questions?"

Hiller: "No, it's four questions of four leaders in four hot spots, " the reporter tried to put his victim at ease.

"The new Pakistani general, he's just been elected - not elected, this guy took over office. It appears this guy is going to bring stability to the country and I think that's good news for the sub-continent," the Republican candidate offered.

Good news, but not an answer, and the interviewer insisted: "Can you name him?"

"General. I can't name the general. General" was all Mr. Bush had to offer.

The reporter tried another country in the same region, but the Indian prime minister's name did not come to George Bush either.

"The new prime minister of India is - no."



  2. This blog seems to be of doom and gloom... If you don't think that Trump is a viable candidate, the least you can do is offer up someone who you would think is better.

  3. Well, Hank, when your country is twenty trillion in debt with over 100 trillion in unfunded liabilities, when the videographers who uncovered a grisly money for baby parts scandal are changed with a felony instead of the baby-part merchants, when our President hands Iran 150 billion dollars to help them finish their nuclear missiles, when main-stream Americans are more ignorant than they've ever been, and yet somehow at the same time the cost of our educational system has passed almost every country in the world...Listen, I could go on and on with doom and gloom.

    To you second point, I, as well as every other real conservative in this country are rooting for Ted Cruz "The Canadian."