In 1992 the total vote in the Presidential race was 105 million. Over 18 million of them were for Ross Perot.
In 1996 only 95 million voted in the Presidential race. Eight million voted for Ross Perot. Perot got 10 million fewer votes in 1996 than in 1992 and 10 million fewer people voted.
In 2000 the vote in the Presidential race was 105 million again. With the same turn out as in 1992 the election in 2000 was a virtual tie. If Perot took votes from the Republican right in 1992 and 1996, why didn't Bush win big in 2000? They sure as heck did not vote for Buchanan.... did they?
The truth is exactly like the exit polls in 1992 and 1996 revealed. Perot drew from both the Bush and Clinton in equal amounts. The exit polls in 92 and 96 showed that had Perot not run, Clinton would still have won the presidency both times.
The right wing fruitcakes like to think they are important... but they are not. They scream at the top of their lungs that there was no difference between Democrats and Republicans... and that is how they always behave. They voted for Perot in 1992. Ten million of them did not vote at all in 1996 and they split right down the middle in 2000. The are never a factor. They don't elect anyone ..They don't defeat anyone. They are not a factor. That is why Karl Rove does not give a hoot what they do. They are not important.
Thanks for posting that information! Found an article recently that said that Pres Reagan regretted bringing the religious right into the Republican Party because they could not be counted on to vote or support and were the biggest complainers.
Care to elaborate and define exactly who you believe those "right wing fruitcakes" who "are not a factor" are?