Kasz216 said:
Ross Perot was popular because he more or less played to the middle and the "common man." Essentially he targeted Libretarians, balancing the budget, Union Democrats and the anti-free trade vote in general. Clinton and Bush both being Free Trade at a time when everyone was afraid Japan was going to buy the country... part of stealing Perot's momentum was Clinton making some anti free trade promises he later disregarded.
He didn't really start spending his own money until after he reentered the race after he left because "Republicans had compromising pictures of his daughter and threatened to release them if he didn't drop out." He actually thought spending money on advertising was a huge waste of time when he could just give interviews to tv shows.
"Evening up" foreign trade, balancing the budget, simplifying taxes. These are all themes that both parties still pay lip service too because of how powerul those positions resonate.
Strengthening the war on drugs and electronic town hall voting on all issues i'm guessing haven't held up as well. |
You obviously haven't been paying attention. I like how you're just making stuff up.
GameOver22 said:
Seems that Perot ended up spending $26 of his own money in the first two weeks of October alone ($46 million as of Oct. 14). He also said he expected to spend $60 millions. Its also important to remember that election were much different back then (much less money). Just for reference, Clinton and Bush each accepted public funding and were limited to $55 million. Granted, they also had the parties raising money for them as well. http://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/24/us/1992-campaign-campaign-finances-despite-economy-clinton-sets-record-for-funds.html I think this shows that Perot's viability was largely a product of his ability to spend money. I mean he single-handedly was able to outspend the public funding Clinton and Bush received. Finally, I want to emphasize that campaign spending has only increased since then. If Perot tried to run a campaign by spending $60 million today, he would likely be overshadowed by the big guns. Also, even with all that spending, Perot wasn't able to win any electoral votes even with 19% of the vote (kind of shows the importance of campaign strategy). KInd of gives an idea of the increase campaign spending http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/totals.php?cycle=2008 |