Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

POLL GIVES PEROT A CLEAR LEAD
New York Times ^ | June 11, 1992 | New York Times

Posted on 04/25/2011 10:50:39 AM PDT by Will88

"In the telephone poll of 815 registered voters nationwide, conducted June 4 to 8, Mr. Perot was supported by 39 percent, Mr. Bush by 31 percent, and Mr. Clinton by 25 percent. The poll had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus four percentage points."

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 1992; perot; trump1point0
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-71 next last
Perot's independent run for president in 1992 often appears in comments here at FR, and often that third party candidacy is treated as a joke. But it was no joke as this Gallop poll from June of 1992 shows:

Perot 39% GHWB 31% Clinton 25%

This statement from Wiki:

"In June, Perot led the national public opinion polls with support from 39% of the voters (versus 31% for Bush and 25% for Clinton).[4] Perot severely damaged his credibility by dropping out of the presidential contest in July and remaining out of the race for several weeks before re-entering. He compounded this damage by eventually claiming, without evidence, that his withdrawal was due to Republican operatives attempting to disrupt his daughter's wedding.[5]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992

Perot led in the polls for weeks until he dropped out. Had he been temperamentally suited for the pressures of the campaign, and had he followed through with a tough campaign and a good VP pick, he likely would have won. The right candidate could have won as an independent by successfully raising issues and gaining support as Perot did.

And Perot was raising basically the same issues as the Tea Party and Donald Trump.

For those who don't know this history, or have forgotten, maybe it's worth a post to recall that Perot was winning by a good margin until he bombed out, and only regained about half his support (19%) after reentering the race.

1 posted on 04/25/2011 10:50:48 AM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Will88

That was my first election. I vote for Perot. I had read his book and really believed what he was saying. I still think he was right and, to this day, I think America would be a better country if he had won.


2 posted on 04/25/2011 10:53:42 AM PDT by RC one (Donald Trump-I'm listening.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Will88

“Perot 39% GHWB 31% Clinton 25%”

Yeah, but how did that translate into electoral college votes?


3 posted on 04/25/2011 10:53:57 AM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (Who is John Galt?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Will88

Many Freepers do not care if a Trump run puts Obama back in in 2012 as long as they can stick it to anyone who didn’t meet their pure conservative standards (which I gather is nobody in the current GOP or anywhere else that would satisfy them for that matter.)

They have GOP-DS like the libs have BDS or PDS.


4 posted on 04/25/2011 10:56:38 AM PDT by sam_paine (X .................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RC one

My story is similar. When I saw what actually happened, and the effect of a split vote, I’ll never do it again.

If someone has a direct line to Trump, please tell him not to run. It will guarantee another 4 years under the Usurper in chief.

And if anyone has a direct line to Sarah Palin.... :D


5 posted on 04/25/2011 10:57:14 AM PDT by Celerity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz
Yeah, but how did that translate into electoral college votes?

That question was being asked when Perot led in the polls that summer. Of course, it was never answered since Perot blew his lead and won on 19%.

But your snarkiness does not change the reality that an independent held a clear lead in a presidential race until he basically sabotaged his own campaign.

6 posted on 04/25/2011 10:57:49 AM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RC one
That was my first election. I vote for Perot. I had read his book and really believed what he was saying. I still think he was right and, to this day, I think America would be a better country if he had won.

Judging by your tagline, you have yet to learn from your mistake. At the time you made it, you were presumably young and inexperienced, only 18. You had an excuse. This time ... you have zero excuse. You need to learn from your mistakes AND APPLY WHAT YOU'VE LEARNED.

Sounds to me, judging by your tagline, that you're headed toward making the same mistake again.

7 posted on 04/25/2011 10:58:14 AM PDT by Finny ("Raise hell. Vote smart." -- Ted Nugent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Will88

I have a couple of good liberal friends who are hoping that Trump runs.

Not so they can vote for him...

...but because they know he will divide the GOP and give Obummer a solid chance of being re-elected.


8 posted on 04/25/2011 10:58:16 AM PDT by proudpapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Will88
"POLL GIVES PEROT TRUMP A CLEAR LEAD."

Shadow of the past....spectre of the future?

9 posted on 04/25/2011 10:58:47 AM PDT by R_Kangel (`.`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Will88
I am either having a flashback or appoplecit fit.

If some one would just come shoot me...

10 posted on 04/25/2011 11:00:25 AM PDT by mmercier (rolling thunder and powering rain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Will88

Excellent post!


11 posted on 04/25/2011 11:00:56 AM PDT by Obadiah (I don't mind Obama's vacations. It's his coming back that bothers me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RC one
I'll confess I voted for Perot also. Bush didn't seem to want the job and who knew what a scumbag Clinton would be.

That being said I would never vote for Trump. He's only in it for himself.

12 posted on 04/25/2011 11:01:38 AM PDT by McGruff (When it comes to Obama's birth certificate. Trust, but verify.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: proudpapa
I have a couple of good liberal friends who are hoping that Trump runs.

If he runs, Trump plans to enter the Republican primaries.

13 posted on 04/25/2011 11:01:50 AM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Will88
He spendt 29 million taxpayer bucks for zero electoral votes.

he just mucked up the race for GHWBush.

Perot's predictions, however, have somewhat come true
- NAFTA giant suckin sound
- Lobbyists still have too much influence.
- Reduced Standard of living for our kids.

I think his message would have an an audience today. Sarah comes close...

14 posted on 04/25/2011 11:02:08 AM PDT by stylin19a
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Will88

That poll must have been right before Perot quit the race claiming that the Democrat party had “reenergized” itself under Clinton. He only got back into the the race when Bush started to catch up to Clinton, with half the support he had before he quit; just enough to be sure Bush lost, which was all he really wanted, IMHO.


15 posted on 04/25/2011 11:03:23 AM PDT by Hugin ("A man'll usually tell you his bad intentions if you listen and let yourself hear it"--- Open Range)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Finny

Palin is the spoiler this time. It’s the purists and the fundamentalists that will cost us this election, not Donald Trump.


16 posted on 04/25/2011 11:03:27 AM PDT by RC one (Donald Trump-I'm listening.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Obadiah
Excellent post!

I do think many people don't realize that Perot had a clear lead until he dropped out and blew it all. Maybe a few younger Freepers hadn't known this.

17 posted on 04/25/2011 11:04:41 AM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RC one
if he had won.

Perot and his ego gave us 8 years of Bill Clinton.

18 posted on 04/25/2011 11:05:29 AM PDT by lonestar (It takes a village of idiots to elect a village idiot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Will88

19 posted on 04/25/2011 11:06:42 AM PDT by Beowulf9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Will88

This seems to me to be “Exhibit A” evidence that demonstrates that to many, voting is an exercise in pure emotion. Whether it was for a great sounding Perot, or for the first Black blank slate, the process is the same.

This also demonstrates why American polling is all over the map. Basically, Americans have become very weak-minded and make their decisions based upon the latest TV commercial or who talked to them last before the election.

No core values, no direction of spirit, just raw emotional appeal, that’s what seals the deal for the American “Independent” voter.


20 posted on 04/25/2011 11:06:58 AM PDT by Obadiah (I don't mind Obama's vacations. It's his coming back that bothers me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: McGruff

I am sure Perot's 39% lead would have led to an electoral victory over Bush and Clinton. Perot destroyed his campaign when he quit. Clinton took the lead at that point. Perot got back in the race but the damage was done as the narrative that Perot was a little off in the head stuck....he went on to get 19% of the vote.


21 posted on 04/25/2011 11:07:08 AM PDT by RED SOUTH (Follow me on twitter @redsouth72)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RC one
Palin is the spoiler this time. It’s the purists and the fundamentalists that will cost us this election, not Donald Trump.

Care to expound upon your 'slur' purists? I remember some of the moderate high minded former freepers, using that derogatory term looking down their nose at the 'red necks' they depended upon to win their elections.

22 posted on 04/25/2011 11:07:10 AM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: RC one
I still think he was right and, to this day, I think America would be a better country if he had won.

Perot had the potential to go into any business situation and turn it around. If the United States could have been run like a dictatorship at that time (unlike now) he would have been able to do something. Congress would have shut him down on both sides of the aisle and the Supreme Court would have done the same. Perot loved to go after Bush, but avoided making any negative comment about Clinton. After he announced that Bush had hit squads out to get him and his family, it wall all over except for helping Clinton win. People like you helped him push Clinton over the top.

23 posted on 04/25/2011 11:08:07 AM PDT by Dixie Yooper (Ephesians 6:11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Will88

Perot gave us Clinton but Bush gave us Perot. Perot’s job sucking sound is getting louder and louder but still ignored by the two major parties. The only sucking sound they hear is when the ask for campaign contributions from Wall Street while 15,000,000 Americans look for work.


24 posted on 04/25/2011 11:08:43 AM PDT by ex-snook ("Above all things, truth beareth away the victory")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Will88

.... late poll results just in....


25 posted on 04/25/2011 11:09:32 AM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RED SOUTH

The entire, “they’ve targeting my daughters thing” is what whacked him. He could have won that race.


26 posted on 04/25/2011 11:10:04 AM PDT by eyedigress ((Old storm chaser from the west)?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Will88

Perot was uncomfortably similar to Donald Trump. He spoke well, he appealed to fiscal sanity, he pointed out the dangers of big government. He appeared at a time when people were unhappy with the status quo.

But he was morally unsound. Although he was a businessman, he made most of his money off of big government contracts. In other words, he was part of the big government-corporate complex, even though he pretended to criticize it.

He could not be trusted on the social or moral issues. He didn’t understand or credit the difference between moral right and wrong. Therefore he lacked basic principles.

Just about all of that is true also of Donald Trump. He has his political/business connections, including condemnations by the government of property he is interested in. He has recently briefly declared that he is pro-life and Christian, but those are empty words, with nothing to back them up, and much in the past to contradict them. He simply cannot be trusted.

What you say about the polls is true. The people in 1992 were longing for a savior to come along and rescue them from the two corrupt major parties. The big-spending Democrats and Mr. “Read my lips” Bush the promise breaker.

But Perot was not the man, as they started to realize. And neither is Trump now. It will take someone with sound, basic principles. Someone with religious beliefs that they will not go back on. Someone with a firm foundation, as well as the ability to talk and persuade. Perot and Trump are good at talking, but there is nothing beneath to anchor it.

Although many Freepers are unwilling to see it, there is one person who can lead, talk, and persuade, enough to give her a majority against the two major parties, if necessary. And she has demonstrated repeatedly that, unlike Perot or Trump, she really means what she says. She fires up every crowd that she appears in front of, she inspires loyal friends and followers, and she has a long proven record, including having once before beaten BOTH major parties in Alaska.


27 posted on 04/25/2011 11:10:11 AM PDT by Cicero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dixie Yooper

Exactly right. The “hit squad” comment was the galvanizing comment that made people finally wake up and see what most were saying, that Perot hated Bush and was out to sabatoge his effort.

Bottom line? Perot single-handedly gave us 8 years of Bill Clinton.


28 posted on 04/25/2011 11:12:10 AM PDT by Obadiah (I don't mind Obama's vacations. It's his coming back that bothers me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: McGruff
I only confess to past misdeed after swinging for a while on strings attached to my toes and a burlap sack of poop tied to my head.
29 posted on 04/25/2011 11:12:36 AM PDT by mmercier (standards)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine

That is a pretty large box that you are trying to put us all in. I suggest you narrow the size of your boxes, or put yourself into your own box.


30 posted on 04/25/2011 11:12:39 AM PDT by richardtavor (Pray for the peace of Jerusalem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Will88

What’s funny is that if Perot hadn’t done that last minute drop out/rejoin/claim the GOP was trying to disrupt his daughter’s wedding nonsense, he may well have won it. As it is, I think Perot was more of a trojan horse designed to split the non-leftist vote.


31 posted on 04/25/2011 11:13:03 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (What if God doesn't WANT the Gospel rescued from fundamentalism?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hugin
He only got back into the the race when Bush started to catch up to Clinton, with half the support he had before he quit; just enough to be sure Bush lost, which was all he really wanted

Exactly.

And Perot was raising basically the same issues as the Tea Party and Donald Trump.

Trump's only talking a good line. His actions are all far left. Everyone needs to do their own research.

32 posted on 04/25/2011 11:13:35 AM PDT by tisket ("So many guns around town and so few brains." - Humphrey Bogart in "The Big Sleep")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Will88

FLASHBACK APRIL 2007 (IOWA POLL)

http://news-releases.uiowa.edu/2007/april/040307poll-data.pdf

DEMS
Clinton 25.5
Edwards 23.2
Obama 16.3

REPS
Guliani 17.5
McCain 14.4
Romney 9.6

There is a lesson to learn in early polling data. It will always be wrong.


33 posted on 04/25/2011 11:15:33 AM PDT by NavyCanDo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lonestar

Republicans should have run a better campaign and, read my lips, Bush should have kept his promise. Furthermore, I thought blaming other people for your own shortcomings was a liberal trait. Look at the candidates the Republicans have put forth if you want to know why they lost those elections. Bob Dole versus Bill Clinton? It’s like the Republicans wanted to lose. I voted for Dole btw but come on. McCain? I voted for that loser too and his little cheerleader. Look what they got us. Obama.


34 posted on 04/25/2011 11:17:37 AM PDT by RC one (Donald Trump-I'm listening.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
But Perot was not the man, as they started to realize. And neither is Trump now. It will take someone with sound, basic principles.,p> I don't think you'll ever see that great all round person in the political arena. All politicians have flaws, probably more so than the general population because the nature of the political game will repulse most people with really strong basic principals.

I'm waiting to see who declares and what issues they emphasize.

35 posted on 04/25/2011 11:19:48 AM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

slur? I have been called much worse for daring to even listen to Trump. How about you get over it?


36 posted on 04/25/2011 11:20:23 AM PDT by RC one (Donald Trump-I'm listening.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: NavyCanDo
There is a lesson to learn in early polling data. It will always be wrong.

The poll cited from 1992 was not an early poll. It was June of 1992 after the two major party candidates had been chosen in the primaries. It's the equivalent of June 2012.

You're citing polls (April of 2007) more than a year earlier in the election cycle than the NYT poll with Perot. Bush and Clinton.

37 posted on 04/25/2011 11:24:24 AM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine
You are an interesting individual contributor.
38 posted on 04/25/2011 11:25:02 AM PDT by mmercier (sweet sassafras)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RC one
Palin is the spoiler this time.

How so? She isn't even a candidate yet, and may or may not decide to run. If she does, it will be as a Republican in the primaries, not a 3rd party spoiler. If she wins the nomination it will be because more Republicans wanted her than anyone else. That's hardly a spoiler. If it happens then it's up to the moderates to get behind the nominee the way they always tell conservatives to support RINO nominees.

BTW, I'm not a Trump supporter, but he is talking about running for the Republican nomintaion, not running as a 3rd party, which is a huge difference from Perot.

39 posted on 04/25/2011 11:32:39 AM PDT by Hugin ("A man'll usually tell you his bad intentions if you listen and let yourself hear it"--- Open Range)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: RC one

weird answer. Trump is a joke. The fact he argued with Rosie Odonnell like a child makes him unworthy.


40 posted on 04/25/2011 11:34:58 AM PDT by Rick_Michael (Have no fear "President Government" is here)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: All

There is still a very basic point that it seems some prefer to avoid: Perot raised issues in 1992 that could have won the presidency for the right candidate.

Those issues were: the growing federal deficit and national debt, the loss of jobs to one-sided trade deals (the proposed NAFTA trade agreement was part of the campaign) and the influence of lobbyist on our government’s policies and the revolving door between government employment and working for lobbyists.

The Tea Party has been raising the deficit and debt issue for well over a year now, and Trump is raising the one-sided trade deal issue.

Those are winning issues now as they were in 1992 if well presented by the right candidate. And someone might still decide to talk about the influence of lobbyists and the revolving door.


41 posted on 04/25/2011 11:36:13 AM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Will88
Didn't like GW. Didn't like McCain. Voted for both. If I hadn't been willing to compromise and vote for candidates that I didn't like, this country would now be bankrupt, involved in endless wars around the globe, and have a Marxist in charge. Uh,...maybe compromise is overrated.
42 posted on 04/25/2011 11:36:25 AM PDT by throwback ( The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Obadiah
Bottom line? Perot single-handedly gave us 8 years of Bill Clinton.

I don't know if we could have handled another 4 years of Bush at that time. I was always puzzled and uncomfortable with Bush's New World Order speech. Come to think of it, Ronald Reagan really never did endorse him.

43 posted on 04/25/2011 11:37:02 AM PDT by Dixie Yooper (Ephesians 6:11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: RC one
A lot of this was a Texas thing. Bush had earlier refused to work for Perot. You don't refuse Perot and go unpunished.

Perot's ultimate goal was to hurt Bush.

Even worse, Perot ruined a very good public school vocational ed program in Texas....training them for a job. Perot was instrumental in getting that cut and all kids put in college-bound courses. A lot of kids dropped out as a consequence.

IMO, Perot did a lot of damage and much of it was based on things he knew nothing about and didn't understand that he didn't know. Perot was a Napolian Complex little tyrant!

My dislike of Perot has little to do with his presidential run and more about the damage he did in other areas.

44 posted on 04/25/2011 11:38:51 AM PDT by lonestar (It takes a village of idiots to elect a village idiot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
I do not believe that Perot was morally unsound. Granted, he did not advocate social conservative issues, but he was a very patriotic man and loved our nation. He had American values of hard work and a belief in right and wrong. He had complete disdain for how McCain abandoned his crippled wife (whom Perot supported when McCain was a POW) when McCain returned from Vietnam. And, I know of no one who was more involved with our POWs in Vietnam than Perot.

Perot's main problem was that he was a flake as a candidate.

45 posted on 04/25/2011 11:40:26 AM PDT by MBB1984
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
I do not believe that Perot was morally unsound. Granted, he did not advocate social conservative issues, but he was a very patriotic man and loved our nation. He had American values of hard work and a belief in right and wrong. He had complete disdain for how McCain abandoned his crippled wife (whom Perot supported when McCain was a POW) when McCain returned from Vietnam. And, I know of no one who was more involved with our POWs in Vietnam than Perot.

Perot's main problem was that he was a flake as a candidate.

46 posted on 04/25/2011 11:40:41 AM PDT by MBB1984
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Will88

Damn Cubans.


47 posted on 04/25/2011 11:42:53 AM PDT by MarkeyD (Obama is a victim of Affirmative Action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: throwback
Didn't like GW. Didn't like McCain.

There are valid reasons why some will still say "there's not a dime's worth of difference" between the two parties. There are differences, but when it comes to the move toward globalism and one-sided trade deals, and more big government and endless deficits, some times there isn't much difference between the two parties.

My basic approach is I'd never vote for a Dim for anything higher than a county or court district office. But that doesn't mean I support everything some Republicans are doing.

48 posted on 04/25/2011 11:43:50 AM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Hugin

All battles are won or lost before they’re ever fought. The primary election is where a general election battle is either won or lost. The Republican party has developed a bad habit of not learning this lesson. More to the point, I have already heard numerous conservatives asserting that they will not vote for Donald if he is picked over Sarah Palin. That means they would be the ones spoiling the election, not Donald Trump.


49 posted on 04/25/2011 11:45:01 AM PDT by RC one (Donald Trump-I'm listening.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Will88

Indeed. Those issues are winning issues for the right candidate.

I would also add term limits and line item veto. Perot generally had the right issues, but was the wrong spokesman.


50 posted on 04/25/2011 11:45:24 AM PDT by MBB1984
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-71 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson