This was actually Everett Carll Ladd's argument for why Perot might have cost Bush the election, regardless of self-reported preference on Election Day. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2152483?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents …https://twitter.com/PatrickRuffini/status/1148615970010873856 …
My assumption has always been that Perot cost Bush the election because Team Bush turned its fire on him for about three months when they could have sunk Clinton with the Flowers stuff for good. And Perot's attacks were always on Bush, not Clinton.
-
-
That's Barone's thesis from 1993: Perot de-partisan-ized the critique of Bush and forced him into a two-front war.
-
Perot also split the white vote which cost HW states as well. he probably would have lost even if he had not dropped out due to that dynamic of splitting right wing vote
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Also, don't forget that Perot dropped out the day before Clinton's acceptance speech, only to come back in later. That put a lot of newly-interested folks in a place they wanted to here what WJC had to say that night.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.