If one is a leftist and wants a third party just so we’ll be represented at all, then supporting right wing independents could backfire. Their corrupt corporate moderates are costing the right just as much support as they cost us. There’s a lot of religious folks out there who - if united - would usher in the Handmaid’s Tale.
Ross Perot came very close to actually winning. In today’s climate, a far right candidate just might.
Just curious… In what way did Ross Perot come close to winning? I see that he got 8% of the popular vote in 1996 but I’m not seeing that he ever got an electoral vote.
If one is a leftist and wants a third party just so we’ll be represented at all, then supporting right wing independents could backfire. Their corrupt corporate moderates are costing the right just as much support as they cost us. There’s a lot of religious folks out there who - if united - would usher in the Handmaid’s Tale.
Ross Perot came very close to actually winning. In today’s climate, a far right candidate just might.
Just curious… In what way did Ross Perot come close to winning? I see that he got 8% of the popular vote in 1996 but I’m not seeing that he ever got an electoral vote.
In that he got a large percentage of the total votes.
“very close to actually winning”
“8% of the popular vote”
“Very close”
…
Yes, that was only 25% short.
Yeah if only 4x more than what they actually got, they totally could have won. You do understand that 25% is nowhere near “very close”
No. I’m telling you that within 25% is close and you’re trying to argue that it’s not.
He would need at MINIMUM 3x+ votes more than he got in order to win. That isn’t close.
We seem to agree entirely on how math works, yet disagree entirely as to how easily 25% of voters can change their minds.