Welcome Instapundit Readers! Thanks readers for catching the mega-typo in the first paragraph, since fixed. Yes, I did mean, “blue” states.
One of the reasons I’ve been bullish on Republican chances against incumbent Democratic Senators in such red blue states as California, Oregon, Washington and Wisconsin in next fall’s elections, not to mention purple states like Colorado and Nevada (as well as red states like North Dakota) is that in 1992 and 1996, Ross Perot ran better in each state (save California and Colorado in 1996) than he did nationwide. Indeed, in 1992, he ran above 20% in all of those states, capturing nearly one-quarter of the vote in Colorado, Oregon and Washington and exceeding that mark in Nevada.
To be sure, demographics have changed somewhat in the intervening years, but the primary appeal of Perot’s campaign, deficits spiraling out of control, remains salient, given the recent expansion in the federal government undertaken by President Obama and the 111th Congress.
And while I have shared this theory with friends, I have yet to blog on it. Steve Chapman (via Glenn) beat me to the punch in an excellent column on the renewed relevance of the “short, crew-cut scold with a thick twang and a cranky manner“:
. . . his complaints about Washington’s chronic overspending struck a chord with the public. A few months before the election, he was leading both incumbent George H.W. Bush and challenger Bill Clinton in the polls.
Despite Perot’s loss, Chapman believes (and I agree)
His candidacy was not for nothing. It created a new awareness of a risky fiscal policy that, in Perot’s words, was “robbing future generations.” It caused Americans to consider whether fiscal indiscipline was defensible on either economic or moral terms. And it sowed the legitimate fear that deficits would be fatal to prosperity. . . .
Obama’s expensive ambitions have brought the issue back to center stage. He vows to cut the deficit in half. But under his budget blueprint, the government would accumulate some $7 trillion in new debt over the next decade.
With the deficit issue back at center stage, those Perot voters (and their younger ideological kin concerned about their future) will think twice before voting for the incumbent party this fall. And they may, as they did in 1994, vote for Republican congressional candidates in 2010. In Washington State which has not gone Republican in a presidential election since the Reagan landslide of 1984, voters elected Republicans to fill 7 of their 9 House seats.
A wave similar to the, which removed the then-Democratic House Speaker from his Spokane-based seat in eastern Washington, could surely topple Patty Murray.
With the spending/deficit issue continuing to gain traction, Republicans could benefit merely by being the party out of power. The idea which rallied many to the cantankerous Texan could well rally many against the party of the righteous Illinoisian.
FROM THE COMMENTS: Liberty Jane writes (and I pretty much agree), “The Republicans have to embrace a non-establishment candidate. (Something of a non-career politician — someone who has done other things in his or her life).” There’s lots more good stuff in the comments, so I encourage y’all to peruse them and consider the responses. Delighted that my post generated such thoughtful discussion.
toad echoes the point of my post in his succinct remarks:
The interesting thing is not Ross Perot or some other third party candidate but the issue Perot raised. If someone(s) on the Republican side would/could emphasize it it in the same way that Perot did, it could cost the Democrats dearly in 2010.
I’m assuming he means the deficit.
Being from Washington, I would LOVE to lose Patty Murray who regularly tops polls of congressional aides asking who they believe is the stupidest person in congress. (She’s always been top 5) But I don’t know if its going to happen. Democrats have corrupted the political process here, every time there is a close election, they miraculously “find” enough ballots in King County to put them over the top. Maria Cantwell stole the election from Slade Gorton this way and Maria Cantwell stole the gubernatorial race from Dino Rossi this way. (coming to your state in 2010!)
But as for a Perot-effect on the 2012 election, I fully expect Democrats will be working hard behind the scenes to get someone to run as a third party candidate. Remember, Obama is the first Democrat since Jimmeh Carter to win with a majority vote, and now that Americans know what he’s about, I do not expect him to win a majority again. So, Dems will be actively funding any conservative third party candidates that crop up, and if one doesn’t materialize, will field their own candidate (someone like a Bloomberg) who will then tailor their message to draw more votes from Obama’s opponent than from Obama.
This while ACORN, under new management, and the Mafia (aka labor unions) register enough dead people that Dems can stuff the ballot boxes in big cities and other stronghold counties.
That’s how I think “Perot” voters will affect the 2012 race.
Ross Perot is dead as a political force. The issue of spending and economic growth is there for a TV celeb like Donald Trump, Jack Welch or even Bloomberg.
If either Meg Whtman, or Carly Fiorina pull of a win. It would really set the stage for a combination of business figures to influence the race in 2012. And if unemployment is over 9% in 2011, business people will be coming out of the woodwork to run against Obama policies.
Politics in Washington state are driven by Western Washingon, which with the exception of two or three counties, is liberal. Patty Murray is a good fit for Washington state and that’s why she has been elected three times and will probably get a fourth. As for Maria Cantwell, Gorton knew he lost, as Western WA (where two-thirds of the voters are and whose taxes pay for Eastern Washington’s services) are. Gorton has the power if incumbency, but was never powerful. To accuse her of stealing the Senate seat is PREPOSTEROUS. As for the 2004 election, it was close. You incorrectly state that Maria Cantwell did that (as she wasn’t the candidate, that was Chris Gregoire). There is NO PROOF (find it!) that Chris Gregoire or even her advisers were remotely involved in the post-election incompetence and perhaps malfeasance at the King County election). George Bush lost the ppopular vote, and just like his election was determined by a court of law, so was Gregoire’s. You fail to mention her overwhelmingly clear trouncing of Dino Rossi in 2008! Get your facts straight before throwing out random accusations!
I think there is something to your theory. I was a Perot voter back when and have been a registered independent voter in Colorado my whole life. I’ve voted either Democrat or Republican before, but a key issue for me is spending reduction, far above social issues or just about anything else. I figure at the national level politicians don’t actually have that much effect on social issues but they sure have a magnified effect on government spending, given that they spend there and then force states to spend on things they may well not have otherwise.
Ross Perot is why Bill Clinton got elected to two terms. If he (or some other opportunist) runs a third party candidacy, then expect the Tea Party Candidate and the Republican to steal a majority from one another.
Remember, Bill Clinton didn’t win a majority in EITHER of his two elections. Instead, Perot took enough votes (lots in 92, far less but still enough in 1996) to let Clinton win on a plurality.
So before you trumpet the Perot Effect, let’s get real about what that effect really was. It was a pro-balanced budget, anti-free trade faction that probably is still out there, but if they (or the modern tea party movement) decide to go it alone, they will hand Obama four more years.
If Republicans want to make gains next year, what needs to happen first is for a bona fide conservative leadership to emerge, and the RINOs need to be marginalized. No more of this Democrat Lite crap.
I think you have red & blue wrong in your first sentence…
Ross Perot may well have handed the 1992 election to Clinton, but Dole lost ’96 all by himself. And Clinton won a Presidency that was greatly constrained by the Perot movement. When 19% vote third party, both D’s and R’s can see their peril. Once Gingrich made Perot’s issues Republican issues, Clinton’s plans for health care and growing the government were dead. So the budget got balanced and Clinton was forced to the center.
We have the same dynamic this time, only difference is Obama hasn’t the wit to back down. He’s going to press on, the Republicans will take the House and many Senate seats in 2010. THe only question is whether the Republicans can seize the opportunity. They can run a fiscal conservative sane person (e.g. Romney) and win big, or they can stick with the Christian issues and lose.
Hi Daniel,
Your post is mostly about voting patterns, which I don’t know much about, but it is interesting non-the-less.
I did notice that you made a mistake in the first paragraph, where you call California, Oregon etc. “Red” states. I think you mean “Blue” states in the current usage of color/ideology.
OT, it is interesting that “Red” means conservative, when it used to mean communist. I can’t tell why communist was “Red” in the first place. I bet there is a story there somewhere.
James
Which brings up the question, again: What is a Republican?
If the ‘Perot’ effect has the effect of strengthening the Republicans in the upcoming races, it will be for the good. If it has the effect of drawing conservative votes to a 3rd party, that would be a disaster and give Obama another term. The conservatives need to take control of the Republican party and run candidates that this year’s tea party patriots can and will support. Even if we have to do as John McCain’s mother suggested, and “hold your nose and vote”. Everyone needs to be made aware of the downside of the ‘Perot’ effect and not get rolled by it.
Read Joe Klein’s book “Primary Colors” – a novel in name only, really a work of non-fiction, names changed to protect the guilty & dishonest.
Ross Perot was a false flag presidential candidate, when Bill Clinton was running against Bush Sr and later Dole.
Dean Barkley was a false flag senatorial candidate when Al Franken was running against Minnesota Senator Coleman.
I have no doubt that Team Obama will find and promote a false flag presidential candidate in 2012. I predict Huckabee will be the 2012 false flag candidate.
The Republicans have to embrace a non-establishment candidate. (Something of a non-career politician — someone who has done other things in his or her life).
A populist, libertarian-leaning candidate. A veteran would be welcome, too.
I fully agree with American Elephant and believe this is the job that Glenn Beck has been groomed for–to agitate against both parties and then promote a third party candidate. Many will follow.
Perot voters were not about anti-free trade – or at least no-one I knew who voted for Perot was interested in that aspect. It was all about fiscal prudence.
Yes Perot was a spoiler that year who got Clinton elected. But you are all assuming another such candidate will be found – I think voters are a lot less likely to be drawn off to a third party remembering that experience, or else Ron Paul would have had a better turn than he did. The main point of the article stands, that many such voters are interested now in candidates that exhibit fiscal prudence and the lockstep nature of the candidates from the states in question leaves a lot of them very vulnerable, even if someone attempts to fund a spoiler candidate. You can’t just “create” a Perot out of thin air and have him be believable or have any effect.
The interesting thing is not Ross Perot or some other third party candidate but the issue Perot raised. If someone(s) on the Republican side would/could emphasize it it in the same way that Perot did, it could cost the Democrats dearly in 2010.
Right now polling and focus groups put things close between Dems and Reps. It only takes a few percent of the “swing” voters to win in these conditions.
This is one Oregon Perot voter who has become a De facto Republican. This is way too serious now for any protest voting.
I voted for Perot (twice), Bush2 (twice), and Obama (once)…and all I hear from the left is laughter (ie “thanks for voting Perot!!!”)..and all I hear from the right is derision (“way to go bonehead!!!!”)
and all I can say is: “you can all go f*** yourselves!”
I was a Perot voter. Got involved with the UNITED WE STAND group AFTER he pulled out of the race and before he got back in. Except for voting I had been politically inactive and very ignorant of government. Perot did a great favor by educating many of us re government excesses. Have done a great deal of self education since that election. Did not vote for him 2nd time. But as a result have learned that my values and beliefs of what America is about put me firmly in the conservative camp. Am now an ACTIVE participant in our country’s affairs. Thank you Ross Perot. (PS the people who attended the UNITED WE STAND meetings were equally from the left and the right, there was not a “ding a ling” in the group, all were upset with the direction of government.)
I cried when Clinton won, but I do not for a second regret my Perot vote because without his willingness to educate I wonder how many more years would have gone by before I became policitally aware. ( It would be interesting now to go back and listen to the Perot speeches and see what I think of them in light of all the knowledge I have gained over the intervening years.)
I agree with your premise that those people who are at the same place the UNITED WE STAND group were back then might have a big impact in 2010. But they will need someone who is willling to educate them, speak to them and put in the full force of time and money toward an effort they already believe in but don’t understand enough about to support a particular canidate.
I think you misunderstand Wisconsin politics if you call it a red state. Perot would certainly have done a bit better here due to Wisconsin’s history of La Follette (though of the progressive political strain). I have to agree, though, that Feingold is certainly sounding awfully moderate these days.
It’s too bad that Perot turned out to be irrational, because the rational part of him made a lot of sense. It seems that Democrats don’t much care about the weirdness or bad behavior of their candidates, but conservatives do and so have fewer candidates who meet their standards, and fewer still who prove to be what they claim to be.
I think that’s why no single conservative has emerged as a leader of the opposition to the current reckless spending by Obama and Congress. It’s insane that theological differences should divide us but that’s what Huckabee is determined to do by playing populist/progressive views against Romney. Romney, on the other hand, doesn’t exactly have a clean record on health care reform having compromised with liberals in MA to try to contain costs. McCain, Thompson, Giuliani are all out as viable candidates, let alone leaders.
Who will be able to bring us together and lead a strong movement against the crazies who now control Congress and the White House. Pawlenty? Maybe. Certainly not Huckabee, who is a warmed over Jimmy Carter/Bill Clinton opportunist without the warmth. Romney is capable, but also lacks personal warmth.
I’m looking. There are several governors and congress persons who seem good, but I would have thought Mark Sanford was one of those just months ago.
@Ketchikan: If Perot managed to get you to start reading and finding out what has been happening in public policy, then despite the fact that (overall) his effect on our country was negative, in your case he was able to do some real good. I’d love to be proved wrong here– I’d love for the Perot movement to have created a groundswell of people who are educated about the need for a balanced budget, and realistic about whether a third party candidate will succeed.
@SI: You’re the voter I’m worried about. I don’t know which liberals and conservatives are both making fun of you (socially or in the media or on blogs?) but they both seem to agree that you helped elect Bill Clinton. Instead of lashing out, maybe you should react like the other perot people writing above and take what lessons you can from the experience. You say you also voted for President Bush, and President Obama. I’m assuming that you regret one or both of those votes. And who are you voting for for lesser offices? Are you voting in the primaries? That’s how you shape what Republican and Democrat means. Are you voting for a face on TV or the underlying political philosophies that CNN desperately avoids reporting on?
We’ve all been suckers at one point or another. Did anyone expect Mark Sanford to melt down like he did? Or, if you’re a democrat, what about “Mr. Clean” aka Gov Spitzer? Did even President Obama’s opponents expect him to govern this far left, this fast, and with this many corruption scandals? Let alone his supporters.
We all have something to learn, we all make mistakes. If you learn from them, take your lumps and try to be smarter next time, then you’re on the right track. If you lash out and turn bitter because of your own lapses in judgement, then you’re on the wrong track. Plain and simple.
Now if Republicans actually believed in spending less and drastically cutting government, I’d have someone to vote for. But we all know better.