Reader and frequent commenter “Philosotroll” did not agree with my opinion on third parties:
Ross Perot got zero electoral votes. I don’t see how you can mention him and not mention segregationist independent George Wallace in 1968. I don’t mind editorializing, but I do mind bad research in order to justify a throwaway joke about a two-term president who, for all of his failings, oversaw the greatest economic growth in many of our lifetimes.
You know what, Philosotroll, I agree. I also mind bad research, yours in particular. You are correct, George Wallace received more electoral votes in ’68 than Perot received in ’92. (Wallace got 46; Perot, zero.)
But does that mean Wallace actually affected the election more than Perot did? (This is where the reader infers, correctly, that I’m about to destroy Philosotroll’s argument.)
Wallace was strictly a Southern candidate who catered to strictly Southern voters. By 1968, perhaps even by 1964, the South, previously a solid Democratic-voting bloc, had turned Republican. Thus, Wallace mainly took votes away from Richard Nixon, the Republican candidate, who also, coincidentally, won the election, defeating Democrat Hubert Humphrey.
Ross Perot, meanwhile, had a much broader swath of support throughout the nation. He received nearly 19 percent of the popular vote, compared to Wallace’s 13 percent, and mostly took voters away from Republican incumbent George H.W. Bush. Bush lost to Clinton in the popular vote 37 percent to 43 percent. If Bush gets the majority of Perot’s supporters, he wins in a landslide.
So, as you can see, it makes complete sense to mention Perot and not mention Wallace. Wallace had little effect on the 1968 election while Perot had a huge impact in 1992.
Regardless, my argument had nothing to do with Bill Clinton, toward whom my “throwaway joke” was directed. Impugning Mr. Clinton with the moniker “Slick Willy” had nothing to do with his economic record ”” it was about his known infidelities. I’m assuming that Philosotroll is not willing to stand up for that particular part of Clinton’s record.
As far as Clinton overseeing the “greatest economic growth in many of our lifetimes,” allow me to humbly submit that presidents do not have that much of an effect on the economy.
Yes, presidents can support policies which can make the economic climate more amenable to experiencing growth. However, the American economy has many factors affecting it: the fiscal policies of the ruling party, the monetary machinations of the Federal Reserve, the state of the world economy, trade and, lest we forget, the triumphs and failings of those who actually participate in the American economy.
It is quite convenient for all presidents, no matter their political stripes, to blame their predecessor for a poor economy and let the buck stop with them for a thriving one.
Seems to me that this would suggest that a president’s impact on the economy is overrated.
sickoftalking • Sep 1, 2011 at 10:27 pm
Perot was once leading the polls, ahead of Clinton and Bush, and was doing pretty strongly right before he dropped out. I would argue he came the closest to winning the Presidency; save the mistakes he made to destroy his campaign. He actually did have a chance of winning at some point.
Wallace never had a chance of winning, its as simple as that. Perot, at one point in the campaign, even had a better chance of winning than TR. Speaking of election end results won’t tell you the full story.
Secondly, the issue of what voters Perot took is complicated. Exit polls showed he split the vote evenly in 92, and took more from Clinton in 96. And actually, back in 92, it was believed that he would take more from Clinton, because when he dropped out, the Perot supporters went over to the Clinton camp — since Clinton had jumped on the “change” mantra. Because of that, by the time the debates had come around, the Clinton camp was trying to keep Perot out, and the Bush camp was trying to get him in. Eventually, Bush’s campaign offer Perot’s presence in the debates as a demand for concessions to Clinton.
The only way Republicans can claim Perot took away from Bush at all is that before Perot entered the race, Bush had a strong lead. But by the end of the campaign, the dynamics of the race had already changed. So, the best you can claim is Perot’s presence in that election hurt Bush; not that Perot actually took voters away from him.
Philosotroll • Aug 31, 2011 at 10:31 am
Nevermind, I forgot that the original was in the actual ‘notes and asides’ question from the previous week. http://collegian.csufresno.edu/2011/08/24/notes-asides/ It is not the case that my comment was truncated. For some reason, I thought the comment had been longer.
And I apologize for my grammar in the previous post. I should have edited for grammar before-hand; someone should.
Philosotroll • Aug 31, 2011 at 10:27 am
… I would both responding to the comment, but (a) I can’t find a copy of the original article, so as to offer context both for my original comment, which was truncated and (b) Joshua has already pointed out that you totally ignored my point.
You said ‘The closest a third-party candidate came to winning was in 1912… and 1992.’ This is strictly false. If you had said ‘the greatest influence a third party candidate had wielded over a presidential election was in 1912… and 1992’ then you might have an argument.
Frankly, I don’t care much about Clinton’s marital infidelities. I care about policy, and would rather not waste time moralizing. I likely would have voted for H.W. in ’92 (but I was a toddler at the time) as a political moderate, but my point was that I found the editorializing tasteless. That was really a secondary point.
The primary point was, and is, that when you said ‘The *closest* a third-party candidate came to winning was in 1912… and 1992’ you were wrong.
If you want to argue about Wallace’s impact on the the ’68 election, diverting Dixiecrat votes away from Humphrey by standing him next to Johnson on segregation, we can talk about that impact. I didn’t belabor the point, because you didn’t claim that Perot had a great impact. Of course, either way, I think you’re wrong.
But, if you claimed (and you did) that Perot came closer to winning the presidency, that is not a matter of opinion, that is a matter of fact, not of opinion and analysis. As a matter of fact, you are wrong.
Executive Protection NYC • Aug 31, 2011 at 4:48 am
The closest a third-party candidate came to winning was in 1912, when former president Teddy Roosevelt
joshua4234 • Aug 31, 2011 at 1:14 am
This seems like an incredibly obvious strawman, which is either blatant since you didn’t restate specifically the paragraph Philosotroll was obviously responding to or you just didn’t understand it.
Here’s what you said as a refresher,”The closest a third-party candidate came to winning was in 1912, when former president Teddy Roosevelt nearly overtook Woodrow Wilson with the short-lived Bull Moose Party, and 1992, when billionaire Ross Perot challenged siphoned votes away from G.H.W. Bush, leading to the election of Slick Willy Clinton.”
I’m guessing he wasn’t arguing who had the most influence on an election, but rather point out that you were mentioning third parties coming close to winning and you failed to mention one of the top three in an informative context. Now one could argue who was really closer to winning, and if getting a lot but thinly spread support is better than appealing to a denser population, but there’s no reason not to mention them both. Instead you ignore Wallace and mention Perot, not in the context of a third party coming close to winning but instead appearing to be whining that he aided in a Dem beating a Republican while including a weak jab.
Perhaps he thinks you just didn’t care enough to look up Wallace, maybe you did after he commented and rationalized it in the note I don’t know, but if in fact you were only talking about influence on elections, it wasn’t how it was written in your note and definitely not the general theme of the note so how would he know.