cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Highlighted
Advisor

Re: Endorses Clinton 10/22/92

An interesting election, though. As noted, GHWB was the ultimate Deep State insider. The government made Perot and he had an off and on relationship with the CIA. In all likelihood Clinton was CIA involved ever since he was kicked out of Oxford and bailed out by a fellow from the US embassy, then went off travelling with the expat lefties across Europe.

Highlighted
Advisor

Re: Endorses Clinton 10/22/92

So the question remains, why swap out one Deep State operator for another?

 

As far as the financial deregulation agenda, most of that stuff came out of centrist GOP think tanks anyway, Bush wasn't going to be inimical to that.

 

Tying a couple of threads together, yes the democrats totally suck. Even though most people prefer Sanders' policies when you remove the branding and labels, the Clinton DLC team has more than enough of the special interest groups within the party tied up that they don't have to debate him on any of that- they just freeze him out of the news.

Highlighted
Advisor

Re: Endorses Clinton 10/22/92

Good observation.  The Sanders campaign is most definitely not being televised.

Highlighted
Honored Advisor

Re: Endorses Clinton 10/22/92

I`m not at all disagreeing with your raw numbers that mathematically "Perot didn`t defeat Bush".  It was the economy that tipped the scales, however Bush`s stand on a 2-state Israel wasn`t a factor.

 

But polls and people are hard to measure, there are cases of a politician being 10 point behind going into an election, yet actually winning by 10 points at the poll that really matters.  If Perot hadn`t ran, I probably wouldn`t have bothered voting to be honest about it.  i didn`t see a big difference between Bush and Clinton or later Clinton and Dole, so I felt secure in "throwing my vote away" on a 3rd party.

 

The fact you had both Clinton and Perot running against Bush, on the debate stage there was a image of 2 guys running against and showing no confidense in a incumbant Bush that was in a recession, a recession that was in recovery just in time for the newly elected Clinton to take credit for and ride that old nag to the end of his 2nd term...just to hand over a new recession, 9/11 and a tech bubble burst to the newly elected younger Bush in 2001. 

 

But yes, the raw math does say that Perot wasn`t a factor in Bush`s defeat.  However the emotional level just like the grain and cattle markets, elections don`t always follow the mathematics.