This Columbus Dispatch story about outgoing Ohio Governor John Kasich quotes him as saying that it is still possible he will be an independent candidate for president in 2020. Thanks to Political Wire for the link.
This Columbus Dispatch story about outgoing Ohio Governor John Kasich quotes him as saying that it is still possible he will be an independent candidate for president in 2020. Thanks to Political Wire for the link.
Another one playing into Hillary’s plan.
Why not just back Bill Weld for the Libertarian nomination? Kasich seems to be going after the same base.
Wouldn’t it be ironic if he couldn’t get on the ballot in Ohio?
Well, Ohio ballot access for statewide independent candidates is moderate, only 5,000 signatures. But the Ohio new party petition will be over 44,000 signatures.
How about Bloomberg/Kasich? That’s the ticket for TOTAL victory! 😉
HOW ABOUT A 35-40 PCT PREZ ??? — LIKE 1860 A. LINCOLN >>> 2021 CIVIL WAR II ??? Duh.
—
Uniform Definition of Elector in ALL of USA
PR, AppV, TSOP
Ugggh! I can’t stand this guy.
Everyone should keep in mind that Bill Weld endorsed John Kasich for President in February of 2016, 3 months before Weld showed up in the Libertarian Party claiming to be a libertarian. Kasich is far from being a libertarian, so this is another example of how little credibility Bill Weld has.
Also, note that Weld endorsed Jeb Bush for President in September of 2015, and that he switched to Kasich after Jeb dropped out after doing poorly in the New Hampshire primary. Jeb Bush is also far removed from being a libertarian.
It seems to me that any independent candidate is going to have a really hard time getting on the ballot in many states, including California and Texas. If you don’t like Trump, and you don’t like what the Democrats are going to offer, it would seem that the LP candidate (who CAN get on the ballot in those states) is your choice.
I’ve said this before and say it again, I’m sure Kasich will run as an independent. Maybe he will get the endorsement of the Reform and Independence parties?
Kasich is sure to get divide and conquer help from RED communist Donkeys.
See Perot 1992 — producing the chain of statist MONSTERS since 1992
–
B. Clinton, Bush II, Obama and Trump.
Perot helped Bush, not Clinton. Bush was highly unpopular in a bad economy and flat out lied about no new taxes. During the months when Perot dropped out before he dropped back in Bush was behind in the polls by even more than before or after when Perot was running. A national exit poll of Perot voters showed that only 38% would have voted for Bush if Perot had not run. Republicans keep blaming Perot for Bush losing because they don’t want to admit the truth, which is that they would have lost with or without him. The same holds true of sore loser Democrats blaming Nader for Shrub. In reality, they lost because Gore sucked and couldn’t even win in his own home state.
Was B. Clinton elected by an extremist LEFT minority in 1992 due to Perot ???
IE — USA — for a LONG time —
40 pct LEFT extremists
20 muddled middle — clueless about above/below.
40 pct RIGHT extremists
See inner old ghetto cities vs outer suburbs/rural — with muddled folks in various places.
Mini history —
1928 58 Hoover R – 42 D
1932 58 Roosevelt D – 42 R [Hoover again].
Nonstop major control freak STATISM since 1933 – left/right versions.
—
PR and AppV
The exit poll assumed that voters had heard of Perot.
If the question, was: If you had never heard of Perot, and not considered voting for him, who would you have voted for? No one is that self reflective.
april riley jones is right. Look at the polling from before, during, and after Perot dropped out.
Late June:
27% Clinton
33% Bush
32% Perot
Mid August:
57% Clinton
32% Bush
Late October:
43% Clinton
36% Bush
15% Perot
With or without Perot in the race, Bush’s numbers barely moved. No self-reflection about never having heard of Perot required for that August poll, as no one expected Perot to re-enter the race and so no one was considering voting for him at that time.
Andy – That sounds more practical than ideological. It sounds like Weld was just trying to help, through his endorsement, whichever Republican he thought had the best chance of beating Trump. In case you hadn’t noticed, Weld really, really, doesn’t like Trump.
Jim, if you look at Bill Weld’s record, he never endorsed any Libertarian, or small “l” libertarian, candidates for anything, well before Donald Trump came along. Also, on issues, he supported both Iraq wars and the war in Afghanistan, the Patriot Act, warrantless domestic spying, Eminent Domain for big corporate interests, gun control, and even the Obamacare mandate. Bill Weld is not a libertarian, and it is really sad that anyone on the LP is taking him seriously.
“Was B. Clinton elected by an extremist LEFT minority in 1992 due to Perot”
No, he was elected primarily by moderates like himself who swung away from Bush due to the weak economy and being tired of 12 years of Republicans holding the white house. The far left didn’t like Clinton and the DLC which he led, which was focused on making Democrats less leftist. Clinton snuck in took the Democratic nomination because a year earlier the war inflated Bush’s poll numbers briefly and he looked unbeatable as major Democrats were deciding whether the effort of running was worth it. Clinton was one of the few who correctly foresaw that Bush’s popularity would come down as fast as it went up. The war was over, and the economy still sucked.
Most people aren’t far left or far right, nor wedded to Democrats or Republicans. Perot gave many a third option, but with or without him, the most fundamental fact about the election for the voters in the middle who end up deciding the outcome was that Bush was a weak president with a weak economy, a known liar who famously promised no new taxes and broke his promise, and much as when Reagan was first elected and asked people if they were better off than 4 years earlier, in 1992 most voters in the middle believed the answer was “no”. Bush kept the white house for the Republicans in 1988 on the strength of Reagan’s popularity and what was still a strong economy, but in four years he squandered all of that and middle of the road voters saw no reason to give him another term.
It’s only sour grapes Republicans who need Perot to blame for what would have happened with or without him. Really the only thing that would have changed without Perot in the mix is that Clinton would have had a majority rather than just a plurality of the popular vote.
It’s the same story with sour grapes Democrats who blame Nader for shrub and some of whom blame Johnson and Stein for Trump. In none of those cases do the numbers actually bear those sour grapes gripes out. Like it or not, both Bushes, Clinton, Obama and Trump would have all been elected potus, with or without Perot, Nader, Johnson, Stein or any other also-rans. Not one of those elections would have ended up with a different result had there been only two candidates. Sorry, but them’s the facts.
ARJ —
what percentage of the 2019 elected gerrymander HACKS/MONSTERS in the USA Congress and all 50 State legislatures are left/right *extremists* [aka undercover communists/fascists) ???
— due to their EVIL rotted deceptions
— being elected in de facto communist/fascist rigged gerrymander areas.
How much yelling and screaming in meetings behind closed doors ???
I had occasion to be in a semi-closed meeting of local activist Donkeys with a major Donkey Prez candidate in the past before State Prez primary
— like a meeting of the Lenin gang in 1917 Russia
— with the Donkey Prez candidate playing Lenin
— standard back and forth communist cliches
— NEVER seen or heard in public.
@Jim,
If Perot had not run, there would not have been that June poll.
If you compare 1992 to 1988, Clinton did worse than Dukakis in the Northeast where prejudiced voters would not vote for a perceived hillbilly. This was paricularly pronounced in Massachusetts. Clinton did better in 1996, after voters had become more accustomed to him. Meanwhile, in The South, buoyed by regional pride, Clinton outperformed Dukakis. This was most pronounced in Arkansas and Tennessee.
To come to your conclusion you would have to believe that in Perot’s strongest states that 1/3 of Republican voters were poised to switch to Clinton, but then switched to Perot; but in Perot’s weaker states, only about 1/5 of GOP voters were set to switch to the Democrats but then voted for Perot.
And then in 1996, the Perot voters who would have switched to Clinton in 1992 voted for Dole instead.
The simple fact is that if we compare 1988 Bush numbers to 1992 Bush÷Perot numbers, that they are about the same. Any change in the Democratic vote can be attributed to North/South regionalism, with a special effect for the home states of the candidates.
The simple explanation was that Republican voters switched to Perot.
Question–Perot ’92–20M votes. Perot ’96–8M votes. If Perot cost Bush the ’92 election, then why didn’t Bob Dole win by a huge margin in ’96 with the 12M votes going to him?
Exactly, and Jim Riley’s analysis ignores there are a lot of people in the middle who are not Democratic or Republican voters. They are the people who decide whether they are better off than 4 years earlier because it’s the economy, stupid, and which presidents win another term if the economy became worse on their watch?
Bush wasn’t going to get another term period. His popularity ratings were in the toilet. 12 years was also a long time for one party to hold the white house, it hadn’t happened since the depression and world war and it hasn’t happened since. Anyone blaming it on Perot despite exit polls, despite every poll during the campaign, is just delusional.
Again the only thing that would have been different had Perot not run was that Clinton would have had a majority and not just a plurality of the popular vote, just like the only thing that would have happened without Nader is that Bush would not have had to have an asterisk by his win or a Supreme Court case or Florida recount.
I don’t know when the last time a third or fourth presidential candidate in the race changed the outcome, but it certainly has not been in the last half century.
Jim Riley “The simple fact is that if we compare 1988 Bush numbers to 1992 Bush÷Perot numbers, that they are about the same. … The simple explanation was that Republican voters switched to Perot.”
You mean some independents who happened to vote for Bush in 1988 hoping for a continuation of Reagan abandoned Bush when that hope wasn’t realized. All evidence suggests they would have abandoned him with or without Perot. H.W. Bush’s approval rating had fallen from 89% to 47% in the year before Perot entered the race, with no sign of slowing down until it hit 40%. His lowest approval rating was 29% in July, 1992 – when Perot wasn’t in the race. By the time Perot entered the race, unemployment was 7.4% and rising. Clinton was right: it was the economy, stupid.
ALL govt deficits cut the savings for *productive* gross private domestic investment
— housing, biz bldgs and machines, etc.
—
MORON BLUE fascists have been brainwashed since 1929 about deficits.
1929-1941 BLUE Hoover- RED Roosevelt deficits = Great Depression I.
—
1982-1992 BLUE Reagan – Bush I MAJOR USA deficits doomed Bush I in 1992.
1993-2000 lower deficits – Great Econ Boom.
2001-2008 BLUE Bush II INSANE deficits = Great Depression II — along with the bank gangster BAD loans – new/used housing.
—
RED communists love deficits — to destroy private capital — to get TOTAL communist CONTROL of the economy.
2009-2012 RED Obama deficits almost destroyed private capital investment.
—
Thus the INSANE level of govt debts NOW in ALL major govts in USA —
with another deficit ZERO ECON IQ MORON in the Oval Office – with more $$$ TRILLION deficits scheduled.
— IE a pending econ collapse of Western Civilization.
—
PR and AppV
@MS,
Turnout increased by 13 million from 1988 to 1992. It declined by 8 million by 1996. Perot brought new voters in, and many left disenchanted after they realized Perot was a bit nutty.
To the extent that polls showed Perot voters shifting to Clinton, this may have been these new voters. Remember it was the Bush administration that negotiated NAFTA, which was ratified by support of Republican representatives in Congress.
If Perot had not entered the race these voters would not have voted. It would have been a close race.
https://www.freep.com/story/money/economy/2018/10/12/cities-never-recovered-great-recession/38094325/
2006- NNNN Great Depression II continues >>> more ghost towns — due to communist deficits.
Obama enjoying his LOOT from the tax slaves ???
How many cities / entire States are Civil WAR II timebomb areas ???
ENTIRE States like VA, NC, GA, FL, TX, MI, IL ???
—
PR and AppV
AJR,
1988 Bush 49, Dukakis 42, Total 92
1992 Bush 39, Clinton 45, Perot 20, Total 104
Who did the 39 million 1992 Bush voters vote for in 1988? Likely Bush, agreed?
Who did the 45 million Clinton voters vote for in 1988? Likely Dukakis, will a few Bush-Clinton voters, agreed?
So we have to figure out who 7 million 1988 Bush voters voted for in 1992, and who the 12 million new voters in 1992 voted for, and who the 20 million Perot voters voted for in 1988 if they voed at all?
The problem is that you are trying to explain why a certain phenomena happened, when the data suggests that the phenomena did not happen at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992
W.J.[aka Bill] Clinton — 43.0 PCT = one more minority rule MONSTER ???
First of the post WW II — PUNK / FLIPPANT Prezs ??? Duh.
How many Clinton machinations caused Bush II to barely get elected in 2000 — 47.9 PCT —
Second of the post WW II — PUNK / FLIPPANT Prezs ??? Duh
— with the 2000 Bush v Gore SCOTUS op ???
Folks can look up the 2008 and 2016 PUNK elections.
—
PR and AppV
While Bush II was distracted by the killer Saddam in Kuwait – IE OIL $$$$$$$$$ —
the Russia oligarchs got CONTROL in Russia — later to get the KILLER Putin.
IE — FATAL NON-help by Bush I and later PUNK B. Clinton to get REAL Democracy into Russia.
Result – the current super-danger — Putin-RED China/Trump machinations.
typo – While Bush I was distracted etc.