1988:

1988:
Bush: 48,886,097
Dukakis: 41,809,074
1992:
Bush: 39,104,550
Clinton: 44,909,806
Perot: 19,743,821

How can anybody say Perot running didn't help Clinton win with a straight face?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=mPIVI0CbCmg
youtube.com/watch?v=Rkgx1C_S6ls
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

i know... fuck that guy. he ruined america.

i dont think anyone at the time or since has disputed that

The jewish media determines the president. Goyim are always conned.

Just type 'Ross Perot spoiler' into a search engine and every single link that will come will will say something to the effect that it's a myth.

I was too young, but I remember my dad watching Perot demonstrate mathematical skills on TV.

youtube.com/watch?v=mPIVI0CbCmg

jesus. yeah, he did in fact spoil it in favor of bubba

There are quite a number of things that "certain folks" don't want people to realize.

Both Bush and Clinton were pushing for NAFTA.

Perot had the balls and the gumption to call them out, and they both campaigned on this disastrous policy.

Bush and Clinton are two sides of the same fucked up coin. It doesn't matter. Indeed, Bush is probably the more evil of the two.

1/2
It was a bizarre scene in '92.
Bush won in '88, running on a continuation of Reagan's presidency. There was a bit of fatigue toward the end of Reagan's second term, but he was still popular. Bush defeats Dukakis, gets in, is confronted w/ Gulf War, popularity surges. Domestically, not as much. Buchanan challenges him in primary. Clinton outlasts a crowded primary field. As Bush-Clinton sets up, Perot jumps in. Folks like the common sense/straight talk style.

2/2
It becomes a 3-way and initially helps Clinton. Perot, facing uphill battles w/ organization, ballots, etc. bails. Bush begins to gain. Perot jumps back in, clearly too late to win, but enough to have an effect. The only one w/ a clear record of governing, Bush, is challenged. Clinton wins. IIRC stats showed Perot voters were more likely to have Bush as 2nd choice.
2 years later, Congress goes R, first time since 50's. R's nominate Dole/Kemp. Zzzz. Clinton wins again. Gets impeached.

>Bush is probably the more evil of the two.
Bill Clinton is a drug kingpin, a rapist, a mass murderer and the worst foreign policy president since Carter. How the fuck is Bush more evil than him? They're both NWO stooges but at least H.W. wasn't the worst example of white trash to ever be elected president.

Clinton was to the right of Bush in the long run. He was both Neocon and Neoliberal.

Truth.

So what was in it for him?
Was it payback for past grievances with the fellow Texas family - Prescott Bush, sons and grandsons?

And a sex trafficker.

It was a very different time for exemple Clinton won West Virginia which is now the most republican state of the US.
You can't say that Perrot only took voters from Bush

>hating on based bill
Plebs, the lots of you.

He was head of the alphabet soup. You gotta be an evil sob to head the group that did mkultra

You people are complete morons. Perot was actually the only viable Independent candidate to ever run for POTUS. He was the most intelligent, the most qualified non deep-stater, and wanted US to prevent NAFTA and make a return to independence. He wanted to poke to eyes of what was yet to be termed as "globalist". If anything, his run for office actually highlighted the fact that the illusion of Republican/Democrat was glaringly obvious.

youtube.com/watch?v=Rkgx1C_S6ls

Seriously, there's still so much summer on this board, it makes me wonder where your fucking parents are.

No one has ever said otherwise

>continued massive outsourcing
>turned the Democrats into a mafia organization
>allowed massive immigration that changed American demographics completely
>paved the way for shillary
>"based"

Being evil and being more evil than Bill Clinton are two different things.

>Clinton won West Virginia
Yep that proves it, he would've totally won the election even if Ross hadn't stolen millions of votes from Bush.

Are you willing to bet money on that?