Quantcast

Would Ross Perot WIN if he ran today??!!

BlueRepublican 2012/09/02 19:05:02
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Some of you may remember the presidential campaign of this self-made BILLIONAIRE Texan. He was a real threat to Bush & Clinton and garnered about 20% of the popular vote in the 1992 election.

He set himself apart as a reformer and pushed his popular flat tax.

Today, we find ourselves in a different place. The Economy's in the toilet and both parties have given us a "clear choice" of Coke vs Pepsi. Or maybe that's McDonald's vs Burger King, you get the idea.
coke pepsi
If there was a serious 3rd party contender for the top leadership position of our country, could he WIN in today's climate?

Democrats deny any responsibility for fiscal issues, either blaming Bush or kicking the can down the road on the issues.

Republicans have put forth a weak ticket against a floundering yet popular incumbent president Obama. They also fail to communicate a REAL plan of reform and REAL change.

Here in the real world, folks who lost their businesses, their jobs, their homes and their retirement savings, do NOT trust either party, congress or the government at all. In the words of Jon Huntsman, "there is a trust deficit" in America.

So what do you think?

Vote right now, leave me a comment, reply, share with all your friends and don't forget to RAVE!!!!

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • JT For Political Reform 2012/09/02 20:07:36
    NO
    JT For Political Reform
    +9
    The system is so corrupt that Perot would be just like Johnson or Paul having absolutely no chance to ever get elected. If you want proof just think back to the 2008 election when McCain who was broke and ready to toss in the towel all of a sudden became the man to run against Obama. How did that happen? Money, someone bought themselves a loser to create a winner. The deck is stacked against the people because we do not have FREE elections in this country, the NWO plans who will run and who will lose. What needs to be done is to obliterate the present political makeup and start over or just stand by and watch as they pick their people to win. Either way, the NWO would have had what they wanted, progressive McCain or progressive Obama it didn't matter. Two of the same. That's why I laugh at this 99 percenters, it's a scam, smoke and mirrors and both sides just sit around and point fingers at each other. The NWO has us by the nads.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • mikeeonly 2012/09/12 13:00:15
    YES
    mikeeonly
    +1
    I think so
  • jere.chievres 2012/09/05 17:54:24
    NO
    jere.chievres
    He was a kook back in the day, and still is.
  • jubil8 BN-0 PON 2012/09/05 00:03:12
    NO
    jubil8 BN-0 PON
    Too many Americans are brain dead and will just vote "the party line."

    But that's a great suggestion, Blue.
  • jackolantyrn356 2012/09/03 15:35:34
    NO
    jackolantyrn356
    We are WISE to that S**T, BUt when he comes to you on Black Feet. ............Well/////////////...
  • srini 2012/09/03 14:46:11
    NO
    srini
    Though he could probably make a run-off with Romney (neither Romney nor Perot have any actual ideas).
  • Dwight 2012/09/03 14:06:32
    NO
    Dwight
    Serious doubts.
  • D D 2012/09/03 13:34:26
    Undecided
    D D
    I remember that election and him very well.

    Years later, what people may not know is, he set up California's electric system grid and policies. He then sold to people information on how they could financially exploit it, make money off it. One group he sold to was Enron and they were the best at abusing it. They made lots of money while CA was having blackouts.
  • Wolf 2012/09/03 12:49:01
    NO
    Wolf
    Over 50% are already enslaved, on the Public Dole, welfare...the majority cannot think ...any intelligent presentation of the real problem could not be comprehended...we need outright default to end the rape and robbery by the Public Sector millionaires and eliminate their $50 Trillion Pension obligation to rebuild this country...
  • Sissy 2012/09/03 11:11:17
    None of the above
    Sissy
    I loved Ross Perot! He was a breath of fresh air and I had many friends who voted for him as a truly viable alternative to the two major parties. I don't honestly know if he would have succeeded today. Probably would have been tough because the extreme right and the TPr's would have no doubt upended his campaign like they did this time with the original tea party initiative.
  • my2cents 2012/09/03 07:12:24
    YES
    my2cents
    +1
    Over romney, definitely. But if I remember correctly, Ross Perot QUIT.
  • Sissy my2cents 2012/09/03 11:13:06
    Sissy
    +1
    I'm trying to remember if he quit only when it was obvious that he was wasting his several billion dollars or because it was getting harder for him to get on ballots?
  • D D Sissy 2012/09/03 12:04:27
    D D
    +1
    I think he saw he couldn't win just like many other candidates drop out.
  • Sissy D D 2012/09/03 12:12:47
    Sissy
    +1
    But he sure turned the electorate and the two major parties on their head!!
  • redhorse29 2012/09/03 05:46:15
    NO
    redhorse29
    +1
    At one time, Ross has a slim chance of winning but let it slip away. Today. He does not have a ghost of chance.
  • mark 2012/09/03 04:58:42
    NO
    mark
    There is too much power within the 2 major parties for a third party candidate. It will take a huge number of people leaving both parties and becoming Independents for anything to change. I hope one day this will happen , but don't expect to see it in my lifetime. To the younger generations: maybe YOU can make it happen.
  • Cal 2012/09/03 04:27:24
    NO
    Cal
    LOL why even ask this?? Of course not.
  • Pedro Doller ~Inc. 2012/09/03 04:27:20
    Undecided
    Pedro Doller ~Inc.
    +1
    He might of won had he not had to withdraw for a while when Bush Sr threatened to snuff his daughter. I saw an interview (which has been scrubbed) with Dan Quayle, Quayle said that he couldn't understand what Bush was doing, it was like Bush was throwing the election. That's exactly what he did, going from a 90% approval rating to loosing in 8 months. He handed the win to Clinton, the 1000 points of commie lights NWO guy. Perot didn't give the win to Clinton. Bush did.

    So what does Clinton do, NAFTA, repeal of Glass Steagal, technology and manufacturing transfer to China, service industry transfer to India, a trail of murders, suisides and plane crashes, Waco, OKC, one ecomonic bubble after another, DOT Com, Freddy and Fanny. After him the baton is handed to Jr. Gore added some spice but went home when he got the environment cash gig. Then there was Jr's romp (he invaded Iraq because Saudi told him to). He didn't fix Fanny or Freddy or re-enstate Glass Steagal. The entire economy consisted of the housing bubble, housing starts not based on economic output but on speculation - double your money in a month. At the end he staged the false flag of economic collapse to guarantee the 0's dictatorial reign.

    In conclusion, had Perot been elected we would have a different c...



    He might of won had he not had to withdraw for a while when Bush Sr threatened to snuff his daughter. I saw an interview (which has been scrubbed) with Dan Quayle, Quayle said that he couldn't understand what Bush was doing, it was like Bush was throwing the election. That's exactly what he did, going from a 90% approval rating to loosing in 8 months. He handed the win to Clinton, the 1000 points of commie lights NWO guy. Perot didn't give the win to Clinton. Bush did.

    So what does Clinton do, NAFTA, repeal of Glass Steagal, technology and manufacturing transfer to China, service industry transfer to India, a trail of murders, suisides and plane crashes, Waco, OKC, one ecomonic bubble after another, DOT Com, Freddy and Fanny. After him the baton is handed to Jr. Gore added some spice but went home when he got the environment cash gig. Then there was Jr's romp (he invaded Iraq because Saudi told him to). He didn't fix Fanny or Freddy or re-enstate Glass Steagal. The entire economy consisted of the housing bubble, housing starts not based on economic output but on speculation - double your money in a month. At the end he staged the false flag of economic collapse to guarantee the 0's dictatorial reign.

    In conclusion, had Perot been elected we would have a different country, a much better country, based on sound economic principles and no derivatives Armageddons on the horizon. People didn't like him because he didn't have the "LOOK" and had a squeaky voice, maybe a fermone reaction. People vote like cattle in a breading pen.

    Maybe I would vote for Perot now if I could, hell I can, I'll write him in

    reaction people vote cattle breading pen vote perot ill write
    (more)
  • goatman112003 2012/09/03 04:15:56
    Undecided
    goatman112003
    +1
    I don't know if he could win but he would surely stir up the pot.
  • Al B Thayer 2012/09/03 03:18:12
    NO
    Al B Thayer
    Wonder how much Bill Clinton paid Ross to help win the election for him?
  • lcky9 2012/09/03 02:44:55
    YES
    lcky9
    +3
    the goofy little guy was RIGHT on the jobs thing to start out with..
  • Katfish 2012/09/03 02:26:09
    YES
    Katfish
    +3
    If he were running today, that would make three times that I voted for him.
  • Gwen 2012/09/03 02:25:22
    YES
    Gwen
    +3
    Spunky ol' Ross
  • sbtbill 2012/09/03 02:16:08
    Undecided
    sbtbill
    +1
    I'd have to hear the program expressed. I almost voted for Perot in 92. I frequently regret not having done so. I think someone who ran on a solid pro-growth ticket could win. Course there is a wide disagreement in this country as to what is pro-growth.
  • voice_matters 2012/09/03 01:55:51
    NO
    voice_matters
    nothing about perot works today
  • KAREN JAMES 2012/09/03 01:48:08
    NO
    KAREN JAMES
    No, he was crazy as a bug before and he still is crazy.
  • Azrael-In GOD we trust 2012/09/03 01:37:22
    Undecided
    Azrael-In GOD we trust
    +1
    If he would run as a Republican, he would've won the nomination, but never as an Independent. Too much of a gamble, altho, back then I voted for him. I hoped he would win but he didn't. He's a sharp businessman and that's what we needed, but instead we got Slick Willy and his blue dress.
  • sbtbill Azrael-... 2012/09/03 02:17:07
    sbtbill
    +1
    Perot understood how to make things. Romney does not.
  • Azrael-... sbtbill 2012/09/04 23:27:16
    Azrael-In GOD we trust
    Perot is a smart man but don't sell Romney so short that BO is re-elected. In my opinion, Romney will do a good job and he doesn't bow to Middle Eastern kings.
  • Jackie G - Poker Playing Pa... 2012/09/03 00:19:05 (edited)
    NO
    Jackie G - Poker Playing Patriot
    Nope, he would not for all the same reasons he lost the first time.

    We, Americans, are not ideologically driven - the people who study this sort of thing, tell us that only about 6% on left are ideological and only about 6% of the right are. Americans hover around center with a lean to the right - we do not like extremes and we tend to reject the people screaming ideological messages and have been doing just that for years and years. That is why we tend to be two big parties and I expect we will remain that way unless we become more ideological.

    Perot made a fair showing to be sure but after that, no real third party emerged - his personality drew in the folks apparently and ended when he lost. The people may not be thrilled with the two parties but they have even less trust in folks who they 1. do not know; 2. talk in phony baloney rhetoric, 3. lack records of success, 4. have unpleasant or weird followers (can you see yourself voting for the OWS candidate) - just the way we are, one day maybe we will change
  • Rogue_Loner 2012/09/03 00:13:44 (edited)
  • Gwen Rogue_L... 2012/09/03 02:26:40
    Gwen
    +2
    where is he now?
  • Rogue_L... Gwen 2012/09/03 02:28:13
  • Randy 2012/09/03 00:03:27
    NO
    Randy
    He pushed "Ol Slick Willie" right into the presidency!!!
  • lcky9 Randy 2012/09/03 02:46:42
    lcky9
    +1
    Sorry but BUSH was no prize..he and the rest of his family are nothing more than progressives..
  • Randy lcky9 2012/09/03 06:56:11
    Randy
    Clinton?
  • lcky9 Randy 2012/09/04 03:10:08
    lcky9
    +1
    and CLINTON well he is much the same if you consider he wanted HILARY care (same as Obama care)... HOWEVER.. people are wising up.. they can see a PROGRESSIVE even in their own party..
  • texasred 2012/09/02 23:52:23
    NO
    texasred
    We were set up as a two party system. A third party candidate cannot win in a two party system!!! http://themoderatevoice.com/1...
  • sbtbill texasred 2012/09/03 02:18:20
    sbtbill
    +1
    We were not set up as a 2 party system. Virtually all the founding fathers opposed political parties which in those days were called factions.
  • texasred sbtbill 2012/09/03 03:20:26
    texasred
    But we are a two party system.... now.
  • Tennessee3501 2012/09/02 23:38:29
    NO
    Tennessee3501
    +1
    The man could be articulate and billiant one minute and then say something really stupid! Remember how he told us that he had dropped out of the race during the Summer of 1992, because the Republicans had threatened to disrupt his daughter's wedding? I have always thought that he was on medications. Then again, he is a billionaire and I worry about how to pay my bills. Go figure!

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/11/21 10:05:01

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals