Posted on 05/26/2003 8:40:07 PM PDT by Pokey78
You have obviouly proved that leftist voters would never vote for a rich business man in a leftist city like New York. Obviously Bloomburg was defeated for mayor.
You have made a real case that leftist voters in New Jerssy would never vote for a rich business man. Obviously the filthy rich Corzine did not get elected to the Senate from liberal New Jersey. Leftists would not vote for a rich buisnessman... not ever....would they?
No, Bush I enabled Klinton to get elected.
In 1992 Bush Sr. got 39 million votes. In 1996 Bob Dole got 39 million votes. In 1992 Ross perot got 19 million votes. In 1996 Ross Perot got 8 million votes. Perot lost 11 million votes between 1992 and 1996. Who got those 11 million votes Perot lost in 1996. The truth is 9 million of them did not vote for anyone in 1996, and two million of them voted for Clinton.
That makes my case that Perot did not elect Clinton in 1992. The Perot voters did not vote for a Republican in 1996. Some did not vote and the remainder voted for Clinton. That is what I said always happens to third party votes.
I can back up my points with facts... You just call me a liar. Yours is the typical Libertarian approach to debate.
At least I like to think so.
I have posted many times that had Bush I come out with any plan for economy during the 92 campaign and claimed it would have been as big a success as the Gulf War he would have won by a landslide. I went so far as to say that had he proposed a two prong approach... one prong to cut taxes and another one to raise them the same amount of the cut, Bush would have won. My point was that had Bush proposed a do nothing economic play, and said it would fix the economy he would have won. But he did not do so.
Seconldy there was only the the Jennifer Flowers issue in the 2000 campaign. That went down the tubes on 60 minutes as Hillary made the case that it was just a female employee that neither Clinton knew well. They made the public believe that Jennifer was doing the evil deeds of the Republicans and trying to hurt Bill for no good reason.
It was Monica and the second term before we learned of Bill and his sexcapades. Remember it was the Washington Post and the rest of the media that refused to break the Monica scandal just as they did decades earlier in the case of JFK.
It as the advent of the internet which occured in the second term, that allowed Drudge to break the story of Clinton and the bimbos. Had there been no Internet it would have been years from now before we would have learned of Bill's sexcapades.
In fact Bill Gates wrote a book about technology in 1994 that did not even mention the internet.
One can always say if A and B happened then C would have been the result. But A and B did not happen and C was not the result. Clinton had mid to upper 50's job approval ratings until after his last day in office.
The Democrats and over have the centrists liked Bill Clinton. If they voters like a presidemt he can get away with anthing he wants to get away with. That is what Clinton did. The 30 or 40 percent of us that thought him evil were and are in the minority.
Greens did about 20% in Alaska. Not fringe material in that state. On the other hand, Greens show up for presidential elections only.
There is no coalition government in the U.S. system, so the usual route for this sort of inclusion is the insistence on a plank or two in the party platform (and the hope that the candidate won't pull a Clinton on them). But the Dems can't just promise the moon here - too radical an environmental agenda will threaten their agrarian and union base. OTOH, the deal can't be too backroom and still attract the individual Green voter.
Ah, the smell of politics! My bet is that Nader will run.
I voted for republican Ron Paul. I also support a balance of trade surplus, huge tax cuts, lower federal spending, repeal of gun control laws, quitting the UN, increased "defense" spending including an anti-missle system, etc.
The question is, is there any other "republican" that would support the things that libertarians support(see above) besides Ron Paul?
There are always exceptions that prove the rule. Your husband, I'm sure did what you say he did. But the numbers do not lie. There were in 1992 about 35 million registered Republicans. There were about 39 million registered Democrats. There are always a few hundred thousand Democrats that vote for the Republican and a few hundred thousand Republicans that vote for Democrats. There were undoubtedly a few hundred thousand Republicans and Democrats that who voted for Perot. That happens every election. A few thousands from each party vote for other candidates. Their votes tend to cancel each other out. They do not decide elections.
Perot got MOST of his votes from new voters. In 1988 less than 92 million people voted for president. In 1992 the total number of voters for president was 105 million. That is a difference of 13 million more voters in 1992 than in 1998.
In 1992 Ross Perot brought out millions of people who normally did not vote for president at all. None of them voted in 1988 and less than half of them voted again in 1996. The clear logic is that if Perot had not been on the ballot they would not have gone to the polls to vote in 1992.
That is just one more reason that supports the fact that 3rd party candidates don't effect the outcomes of elections. The truth is they either don't vote or they split their votes if their third party candidate is not on the ballot.
Thirteen million of Perots 19 million voters in 1992 were NEW voters. Eleven million of those 13 million did not vote again in 1996, yet Clinton picked up 2 million more votesin 1996 than he did in 1992. Doles vote was the same as Bush Sr. Showing the both Bush and Dole got only the base Republican vote.
Not likely ...you see we have this thing about government of the people, for the people, and by the people. Until a majority of Americans support the things Libertarians support the Republicans will not support them.
If more than 65 percent of the population supported the things Libertarians support, both parties would support them.
Libertarians are under the delusion that politicians control this nation. They do not. Both major parties will do what it takes to stay in power. To stay in power they have to please a majority of American voters. When 70 percent of the people wanted welfare reform, even the liberal Bill Clinton supported it. To get any political agenda passed in the USA all you have to do is get a majority of the people to support it.
The only principle of governance in the USA is the people rule.... No other principle or writings on parchment count for anything. If most people support him a president can break any law and be considered lawful. If few support and most are against him he can be found a criminal even if he has broken no law.
Regardless of whether or not Perot tilted the election to clinton in '92, that was clearly his intent. When he started his bogus campaign, several articles/columns in Business Week and other publications pointed out Perot's animosity toward Bush and his determination to defeat Bush's reelection campaign. Perot's actions during the campaign further demonstrate that his strategy was to prevent Bush from winning:
(1) At the climax of the democrat convention, Perot "withdraws" from the presidential race, citing a "revitalized democrat party" in a transparent effort to throw his supporters over to clinton;
(2) When Bush begins surging in the polls during the GOP convention, (and he appears to have a good chance at reelection), Perot once again hears the call of his supporters, and acceeds to their demands and reenters the race. (What a big-hearted servant of the people!)
(3) During the debates, he blasted Bush and his policies and basically took a pass on criticizing any of clinton's policy proposals.
Perot could not have made it any clearer that he was trying to derail Bush and hand the election to clinton if he had worn a neon sign everywhere he went.
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.