Originally posted by Toad
Or it could be the other two words: George Bush.
You remember, the guy wondering about the "vision thing" that ran a totally lackluster I-don't-really-want-to-win-this-one campaign?
That George Bush.
Blaming Perot is like Gore blaming the Supreme Court after he failed to win his home state.
I'll grant you that. I will also grant that Dole ran a less than sellar campaign in 1996.
In the first campaign, Bush was Perot's target much moreso than Clinton, thus amplifying Bush's negatives. Bush's campaign had to respond to both opposing campaigns, dividing their attention and resources. This gave Clinton an advantage.
The 1996 campaign, he offerred an alternative to Dole that incumbant-protesters (a smaller lot in 1996 than 1992, but still there) could use without supporting another "establishment" candidate.
In each case, Clinton did not win a majority of the popular vote. I can't say for certain Perot siphoned off enough votes that would have otherwise gone to the (R) candidate to make a difference . . . but he didn't exactly sound like the big government type to me (my recollection), so I doubt they would have gone to Clinton. Those voters may have simply stayed home instead, I suppose, in which case it made no difference. My gut says it did. We'll never know.
