My impression was that Perot voters were the ones that were voting against Bush 41, but couldn’t bring themselves to vote for Clinton. Perot said enough conservative sounding things to attract them. (Not that I think he actually believed in what he was saying, way too fast a talker.)
Bush lost because he didn’t govern like the conservative we thought he was. Enough voters thought Perot was a viable alternative. If Obama is going to loose like this, then enough of his voters have to believe that he hasn’t governed like the liberal we thought he was, and Paul is a viable alternative.
Is that last statement reasonable?
It’s not feasible in my judgment because liberals only vote Democrat no matter what. They are undiscerning.
Paul is a viable alternative
No he’s not. He will NEVER be president , NEVER . His published pamphlets alone would sink him in 5 seconds and his out of control radical foreign policy is laughable to a vast majority of thinking people . Never happen and a waste of time thinking of it . 3rd party and Obama is in . Anyone with a basic knowledge of politics KNOWS that
Ref. your Post #21: Yes, your last statement is not only reasonable but is exactly the point I made in the Vanity Post.