Trump. It's Bill Clinton, Ross Perot, and George H. W. Bush all over again.

Ross Perot syphoned off enough conservative votes that allowed Bill Clinton to garner enough Electorial Votes to win the Presidency.

The theme of the day on all of the liberal media outlets is "will Trump run as an independent"?

We are being set up again. If Trump decides to run as an independent, that guarantees a Democrat win, possibly with less than 40 percent of the popular vote.

As Yogi Berra said....."it's déjà Vu all over again"

Would prob make a lot of independents puke.

Would prob make a lot of independents puke. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

I wouldn't sell that group short..

How would you know? Hiding in Tibet.

Ross Perot syphoned off enough conservative votes that allowed Bill Clinton to garner enough Electorial Votes to win the Presidency.
Originally Posted by Jackie S

That is a myth and nothing more! There is no way of knowing the exact number of Perot voters who would have voted for Clinton but there is no documented evidence that would suggest that it would have been anywhere close to 100%.

Unlike you, I will admit, mine is just a guesstimate but I suspect it would probably be in the 35-40%. I suspect my guesstimate is much closer to reality than yours.

Bottom line, even if Perot were not in the race, Clinton would have still had an electoral victory. There is no documented evidence to support otherwise. End of sentence!

If you are going to draw the 3rd party electoral parallel, you might want to consider the Nader factor in Florida, during the 2000 election. I suspect a much higher percentage of Florida's Nader voters would have voted for Gore than Shrub. Certainly, no where close to a 50/50 split! If anything, it would probably be 75/25 or possibly even more. Certainly not less!

The final electoral tally in 1992 was 370-168, meaning Clinton had more than twice as many electoral votes as GHWB! On the other hand, the final electoral count in Bush v Gore came down to Florida and Florida alone. The Bush victory in Florida was razor thin and there were clearly, more than enough Nader votes to make up the difference for Gore.

Jackie, your dog just ain't gonna hunt!

That is a myth and nothing more! There is no way of knowing the exact number of Perot voters who would have voted for Clinton but there is no documented evidence that would suggest that it would have been anywhere close to 100%.

Unlike you, I will admit, mine is just a guesstimate but I suspect it would probably be in the 35-40%. I suspect my guesstimate is much closer to reality than yours.

Bottom line, even if Perot were not in the race, Clinton would have still had an electoral victory. There is no documented evidence to support otherwise. End of sentence!

If you are going to draw the 3rd party electoral parallel, you might want to consider the Nader factor in Florida, during the 2000 election. I suspect a much higher percentage of Florida's Nader voters would have voted for Gore than Shrub. Certainly, no where close to a 50/50 split! If anything, it would probably be 75/25 or possibly even more. Certainly not less!

The final electoral tally in 1992 was 370-168, meaning Clinton had more than twice as many electoral votes as GHWB! On the other hand, the final electoral count in Bush v Gore came down to Florida and Florida alone. The Bush victory in Florida was razor thin and there were clearly, more than enough Nader votes to make up the difference for Gore.

Jackie, your dog just ain't gonna hunt! Originally Posted by bigtex

Hardly a myth. The vast majority of statisticians, historians, and political scientists agree that Perot pulled far more votes from Bush than Clinton. I even read an account one time where the states in play were named. Bush would have won and Clinton would have been a Jeopardy question.

Trump is Hillary's best friend.

Clinton would have been a Jeopardy question. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Category:....Governors from States that start with A.
For 100 dollars....."serial Molester and Sexual Preditor".

Hardly a myth. The vast majority of statisticians, historians, and political scientists agree that Perot pulled far more votes from Bush than Clinton. I even read an account one time where the states in play were named. Bush would have won and Clinton would have been a Jeopardy question. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Right. That's exactly what we needed. Trade in our most illustrious period in recent history for havoc wreaked by another idiot bush.

The theme of the day on all of the liberal media outlets is "will Trump run as an independent"? Originally Posted by Jackie S

That is their wishful thinking showing.

Don't worry about Trump. He's serving his purpose.

What? Working on another reality show? LOL

You don't know how 'real'.

Bush would have won and Clinton would have been a Jeopardy question. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Wanna bet? Shall we say $500?

Two things Tampon;

I don't gamble. Even on sure things.
You don't pay off.

You don't know how 'real'. Originally Posted by gfejunkie

It will be called "celebrity candidate".