If it were not for Ross Perot entering the race in 1992, thereby splitting the Republican vote, Bill Clinton would not have won the Presidency. Most people who voted for Perot would have voted Republican; this is a fact. If Perot had stayed out, George H.W. Bush would have won.
If it weren't for Bill Clinton being President, Hillary would not have any merit of her own to persue the Presidency. This is undeniable. Therefore, Ross Perot is the root cause of Hillary running for President. Am I right?
2007-10-16 04:24:28 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Good point here's a star.
However, I have to take issue with one piece of wording.
"Hillary would not have any merit of her own to persue the Presidency. "
That phrase stipulates that she does have some merit now.
She tried one thing while she was first spouse, Health Care, and it failed miserably.
To say that her time in the White House serves her some merit to BE the president suggests that the White House cook is more qualified because he was in the White House one year longer.
She has no merit. She has a monster of a political machine that is expert at giving her Kudos for being the best liar in the race.
2007-10-16 04:33:53 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Maybe, but I'm not so sure such a large portion of Perot votes would have gone to Bush in the states he would have needed the votes. If Republicans believe that Perot cost Bush the election in 92 and Democrats believe Nader cost Gore the election in 00 you'd think they would support run off elections.
Perot said abortion should remain legal so he could have taken some votes from Clinton in both 92 and 96.
There are so many factors that go into what happens today, I don't think you can identify any one as the root cause. Clinton getting elected governor of AK was a factor, Bill and Hill going to the same college was a decisive factor, their being born....etc.
We are where we are, and that's what we have to deal with. I prefer that a member of Democrats for Life were the front runner for their nomination, but I have to deal with choices I don't like and find some "also ran" candidate who can't win to vote for.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nonlethalalternatives/
A group to encourage developing nonlethal weapons and nonlethal pregnancy termination technology.
2007-10-16 04:38:20 · answer #2 · answered by Yaktivistdotcom 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
A clever way to connect the dots, your theory has some credence, but I wouldn't call Ross Perot the 'root cause' of Hillary running. Her desire for power existed way before Ross Perot considered running. The fact that it played out like this is pure chance. Had Ross not run, perhaps Clinton would have won in '98, and then Hillary would still be pursuing her goal. I think this is something she would have tried to posture herself for repeatedly using any means necessary.
2007-10-16 04:38:27 · answer #3 · answered by Pfo 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
No. hillary is responsible for hillary running for president.
Or is all that conservative talk of "personal responsibility" more BS?
"If it were not for Ross Perot entering the race in 1992, thereby splitting the Republican vote, Bill Clinton would not have won the Presidency. Most people who voted for Perot would have voted Republican; this is a fact. If Perot had stayed out, George H.W. Bush would have won."
you need to learn the difference between OPINION and FACT.
FACT is george h w bush LOST! Get over it and stop your whining.
OR usiing your "logic" if nader hadn't split florida in 2000 gore would have beat bush and won. Right?
LOL
2007-10-16 04:33:01 · answer #4 · answered by chickenhawkbushbots 2 · 4⤊ 4⤋
If Ronald Reagan had felt free to pick his own running mate, he wouldn't have picked Bush. If he had picked someone with more enthusiasm, Perot wouldn't have gotten so many votes, splitting the vote. If Carter hadn't been such a miserable president, Reagan wouldn't have won. If Nixon hadn't gotten involved with the Watergate cover up, Carter wouldn't have won. If Kennedy hadn't been assassinated, Johnson wouldn't have scaled up the war. If Johnson hadn't scaled up the war, he wouldn't have been so hated. If Johnson hadn't been so hated, he would have stayed in the race and Nixon wouldn't have won. If Reagan hadn't been president of his union, he wouldn't have learned how to deliver speeches. If his movie career had taken off, he wouldn't have pursued politics. If he hadn't learned to give speeches, he wouldn't have won the election, thereby NOT picking Bush, who wouldn't be defeated by a split vote caused by Perot, causing Bill Clinton to win and Hillary to become a household swear word.
If Hillary had dated the automotive repairman named Joe Mugg down the street from Bill Clinton, she'd be former First Lady Senator Hillary Rodham Mugg.
2007-10-16 04:36:21 · answer #5 · answered by WhiteHotFire 2 · 3⤊ 3⤋
hmm funny, I helped spread Ross Perot's campaign, by handing out campaign trinkets and such, even voted for him myself, and I'm no Republican.
But then again, I guess I have enough intelligence to realize Ross Perot didn't get enough electoral votes to matter, or to consider your point valid.
Don't see a pro-choice candidate splitting the republican votes enough to make a difference.
I guess you forgot about this:
"Read my lips....No new Taxes!" FLIP-FLOP
That is what split the Republican vote.
2007-10-16 04:39:12 · answer #6 · answered by avail_skillz 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I'm not that sure about the Perot vote being solidly in the GOP camp. Solidly in the gadfly camp, for sure. Just like Ralph "I am an Idiot" Nader splitting the tree hugging whining vote away from the Democratic Party -
2007-10-16 04:37:58 · answer #7 · answered by iwasnotanazipolka 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Even if one agrees with your logic, you don't know that Clinton wouldn't have won the NEXT election, and this would have just been delayed by 4 years.
And I don't necessarily agree with your logic. There are too many factors. What if someone inspired Clinton to get into politics in the first place? Maybe say they're responsible. Or someone caused a car accident which somehow prevented Hillary from meeting and marrying someone else.. Maybe Hillary saw a documentary which caused her to want to run, so it's the producer's fault. Maybe Perot got dropped on his head just enough to cause him to be good enough to run for president, but not good enough to win...so the person who dropped him is responsible....what if what if what if. There is no one person responsible for causing that to happen.
2007-10-16 04:32:58 · answer #8 · answered by Marty H 2 · 4⤊ 4⤋
Very true. maybe Ron Paul= Ross perot 08?
2007-10-16 04:34:05 · answer #9 · answered by Dr.NO 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
No, its Dana Carvey's moms fault she is running for president. No one would have voted for Ross Perot if he had not been so popular with the media and portrayed satirically on Saturday Night Live. And Dana Carvey did such a great job portraying him....so he's responsible. But Dana Carvey wouldnt have been here had it not been for his mom....:O
2007-10-16 04:34:02 · answer #10 · answered by Blair C. 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋