Perot victory in 1992

[Izzyeviel]

Perot was Perot he was a brand with a strong following... the rest of the party was more to the right.

[catking]

Aug 24, 2018 17:13:07 GMT greenchristian said:

Aug 23, 2018 9:01:19 GMT catking said:

My guess would be Perot wouldn't have governed differently from Clinton in any material way. He would likely have been re-elected in 1996. However, I doubt the Reform Party would have seen any signfiicant breakthrough in Congress. Most likely Perot wouldn't have been able to hand over the baton to another Reform candidate in 2000 but that candidate would have gotten enough GOP votes to put a Democrat into the White House in 2000. Hard to say who would have been the most likely candidate but I very much doubt it would have been Gore.

Why the assumption that the replacement Reform candidate would have taken more votes from the GOP than from the Democrats? Perot took more-or-less equally from both sides.

Because by 2000, the Democrats would have been out of the White House for 20 years straight. My view is their voter base would have been far more determined to win and more likely to have been loyal to the Democratic standard bearer than the Republicans. Admittedly that is conjencture and depends heavily on who ended up as the candidate in 2000.

You could easily see Mccain doing better in the 2000 primaries in the context of a Perot presidency. And it is possible the Democrats, having seen Clinton/Gore fail to win as New Democrats in 1992 ended up moving to the left again.