So Trump is ducking Meghan Kelly....

[TheH2]

He becomes Ross Perot, and like Perot, gives us a Clinton in the WH.

Why people perpetuate this myth is beyond me...

Do you believe Perot pulled equally from the Clinton and Bush vote camps? I do not.

Even if he didn't, it doesn't mean he cost him the election.

Many factors contribute to a lost election. It's hard to argue that Perot running didn't contribute negatively to Bush's chances.

Given the data, it's even harder to argue that he cost him the election. I really haven't seen anything not based on feelings that would lead me to believe otherwise. For what it's worth, people with feelings thought Mitt Romney had a chance, people with data did not (or a very small chance). This is a perfect example of having at the very least decent information to draw a conclusion.

[RiverguyVT]

He becomes Ross Perot, and like Perot, gives us a Clinton in the WH.

Why people perpetuate this myth is beyond me...

Do you believe Perot pulled equally from the Clinton and Bush vote camps? I do not.

Even if he didn't, it doesn't mean he cost him the election.

Many factors contribute to a lost election. It's hard to argue that Perot running didn't contribute negatively to Bush's chances.

Given the data, it's even harder to argue that he cost him the election. I really haven't seen anything not based on feelings that would lead me to believe otherwise. For what it's worth, people with feelings thought Mitt Romney had a chance, people with data did not (or a very small chance). This is a perfect example of having at the very least decent information to draw a conclusion.

Solid piece you linked. Interesting. Their results indicate that Perot siphoned off Bush & Clinton equally (was it 38%?). I find that hard to believe, but that's just opinion on my part, not something I can back up. Two thumbs up.

[VisorBoy]

He becomes Ross Perot, and like Perot, gives us a Clinton in the WH.

Why people perpetuate this myth is beyond me...

Do you believe Perot pulled equally from the Clinton and Bush vote camps? I do not.

Even if he didn't, it doesn't mean he cost him the election.

Many factors contribute to a lost election. It's hard to argue that Perot running didn't contribute negatively to Bush's chances.

Given the data, it's even harder to argue that he cost him the election. I really haven't seen anything not based on feelings that would lead me to believe otherwise. For what it's worth, people with feelings thought Mitt Romney had a chance, people with data did not (or a very small chance). This is a perfect example of having at the very least decent information to draw a conclusion.

I didn't say Perot 'cost' him the election. It affected Bush's chances negatively, however. Your article concludes similarly:

"Absent Perot in the final month, the Bush campaign likely would have made some progress in closing the enormous gap he faced, but in the end he would have lost, and handily."

Perot contributed negatively to Bush's chances. However, I will buy the analysis in your link that even without Perot, Bush would have lost.

[TheH2]

Even if he didn't, it doesn't mean he cost him the election.

Many factors contribute to a lost election. It's hard to argue that Perot running didn't contribute negatively to Bush's chances.

Given the data, it's even harder to argue that he cost him the election. I really haven't seen anything not based on feelings that would lead me to believe otherwise. For what it's worth, people with feelings thought Mitt Romney had a chance, people with data did not (or a very small chance). This is a perfect example of having at the very least decent information to draw a conclusion.

I didn't say Perot 'cost' him the election. It affected Bush's chances negatively, however. Your article concludes similarly:

"Absent Perot in the final month, the Bush campaign likely would have made some progress in closing the enormous gap he faced, but in the end he would have lost, and handily."

Perot contributed negatively to Bush's chances. However, I will buy the analysis in your link that even without Perot, Bush would have lost.

I just don't like the notion that Perot cost him the election because it just doesn't appear that way. That was the initial assertion. There were a lot of factors that contributed to his loss.

Solid piece you linked. Interesting. Their results indicate that Perot siphoned off Bush & Clinton equally (was it 38%?). I find that hard to believe, but that's just opinion on my part, not something I can back up. Two thumbs up.

Yeah, I thought it was very interesting. It is exit polling so it obviously has flaws, but it shows how much different the results would need to be in order to swing the election.

[awesome guy]

Even if he didn't, it doesn't mean he cost him the election.

Many factors contribute to a lost election. It's hard to argue that Perot running didn't contribute negatively to Bush's chances.

Given the data, it's even harder to argue that he cost him the election. I really haven't seen anything not based on feelings that would lead me to believe otherwise. For what it's worth, people with feelings thought Mitt Romney had a chance, people with data did not (or a very small chance). This is a perfect example of having at the very least decent information to draw a conclusion.

I didn't say Perot 'cost' him the election. It affected Bush's chances negatively, however. Your article concludes similarly:

"Absent Perot in the final month, the Bush campaign likely would have made some progress in closing the enormous gap he faced, but in the end he would have lost, and handily."

Perot contributed negatively to Bush's chances. However, I will buy the analysis in your link that even without Perot, Bush would have lost.

I just don't like the notion that Perot cost him the election because it just doesn't appear that way. That was the initial assertion. There were a lot of factors that contributed to his loss.

Solid piece you linked. Interesting. Their results indicate that Perot siphoned off Bush & Clinton equally (was it 38%?). I find that hard to believe, but that's just opinion on my part, not something I can back up. Two thumbs up.

Yeah, I thought it was very interesting. It is exit polling so it obviously has flaws, but it shows how much different the results would need to be in order to swing the election.

Y
That's a specious argument too as exit polls follow months of Pero pushing those voters away from Bush on domestic issues. None of that happens if Pero isn't there. And Clinton couldn't attack from that side as he was proposing an expansion of government. Even having Stockton in the VP debates may Gore look saine in comparison.

[TheH2]

Many factors contribute to a lost election. It's hard to argue that Perot running didn't contribute negatively to Bush's chances.

Given the data, it's even harder to argue that he cost him the election. I really haven't seen anything not based on feelings that would lead me to believe otherwise. For what it's worth, people with feelings thought Mitt Romney had a chance, people with data did not (or a very small chance). This is a perfect example of having at the very least decent information to draw a conclusion.

I didn't say Perot 'cost' him the election. It affected Bush's chances negatively, however. Your article concludes similarly:

"Absent Perot in the final month, the Bush campaign likely would have made some progress in closing the enormous gap he faced, but in the end he would have lost, and handily."

Perot contributed negatively to Bush's chances. However, I will buy the analysis in your link that even without Perot, Bush would have lost.

I just don't like the notion that Perot cost him the election because it just doesn't appear that way. That was the initial assertion. There were a lot of factors that contributed to his loss.

Solid piece you linked. Interesting. Their results indicate that Perot siphoned off Bush & Clinton equally (was it 38%?). I find that hard to believe, but that's just opinion on my part, not something I can back up. Two thumbs up.

Yeah, I thought it was very interesting. It is exit polling so it obviously has flaws, but it shows how much different the results would need to be in order to swing the election.

Y
That's a specious argument too as exit polls follow months of Pero pushing those voters away from Bush on domestic issues. None of that happens if Pero isn't there. And Clinton couldn't attack from that side as he was proposing an expansion of government. Even having Stockton in the VP debates may Gore look saine in comparison.

Qualitatively, how do you explain Clinton's biggest lead coinciding with Perot leaving the race and the lead narrowing when he returned?

Aside: Given that you are spelling Perot without the ("t") I'm wondering how old you actually are. Seems like a millennial error to me. I'm kidding, you have back problems, you have to be old Hope that's getting better by the way.

[awesome guy]

Given the data, it's even harder to argue that he cost him the election. I really haven't seen anything not based on feelings that would lead me to believe otherwise. For what it's worth, people with feelings thought Mitt Romney had a chance, people with data did not (or a very small chance). This is a perfect example of having at the very least decent information to draw a conclusion.

I didn't say Perot 'cost' him the election. It affected Bush's chances negatively, however. Your article concludes similarly:

"Absent Perot in the final month, the Bush campaign likely would have made some progress in closing the enormous gap he faced, but in the end he would have lost, and handily."

Perot contributed negatively to Bush's chances. However, I will buy the analysis in your link that even without Perot, Bush would have lost.

I just don't like the notion that Perot cost him the election because it just doesn't appear that way. That was the initial assertion. There were a lot of factors that contributed to his loss.

Solid piece you linked. Interesting. Their results indicate that Perot siphoned off Bush & Clinton equally (was it 38%?). I find that hard to believe, but that's just opinion on my part, not something I can back up. Two thumbs up.

Yeah, I thought it was very interesting. It is exit polling so it obviously has flaws, but it shows how much different the results would need to be in order to swing the election.

Y
That's a specious argument too as exit polls follow months of Pero pushing those voters away from Bush on domestic issues. None of that happens if Pero isn't there. And Clinton couldn't attack from that side as he was proposing an expansion of government. Even having Stockton in the VP debates may Gore look saine in comparison.

Qualitatively, how do you explain Clinton's biggest lead coinciding with Perot leaving the race and the lead narrowing when he returned?

Aside: Given that you are spelling Perot without the ("t") I'm wondering how old you actually are. Seems like a millennial error to me. I'm kidding, you have back problems, you have to be old Hope that's getting better by the way.

Perot had already done the damage at that point. He was great at souring republicans on Bush.