“1992: HE LOOK AT HIS WATCH DURING THE DEBATE! HE DOESNT CARE ABOUT EVERYDAY AMERICANS!!!!”
I guess I’m getting older and more cynical, but I think he threw that election on purpose. I honestly believe he wanted Bill Clinton to be POTUS since a Democrat would be a better choice to kick off his “New World Order” alignment with the UN and the then-planned EU.
Clinton only got 43% of the vote in 1992 and 49.2% of the vote in 1996. I don’t think he would have gotten much more had it not been for Perot. No Perot in 1992 would have certainly meant Bush’s re-election ... 1996 would have been a squeaker.
Also, I don’t think Perot was lured by liberals to enter the race ... I think he was lured by the Bush wing of the deep state to enter the race to insure Bill’s win on both occasions.
All of my statements are conjecture, but the USA sure as hell made a pretty sharp, globalist turn during the 1990s. Had half of that happened under a GOP President, the party would have died in the mid 1990s. That would certainly explain the need for a Democratic POTUS to carry Bush’s “New World Order” baton.
“Clinton only got 43% of the vote in 1992 and 49.2% of the vote in 1996...”
PDJT: 62,985,106 votes (45.9%) EV 306. More than the Bent One’s ‘92 total
SWMNBN: 65,853,625 votes (48.0%) EV 232. Less than the Bent One’s ‘96 total
So a candidate can still win with less than 50%! Sometimes a lot less.