1992 Revisted

Can you say 'Ross Perot'?

Trump Will ‘Probably’ Run as Independent If He Doesn’t Win GOP Nomination

Donald Trump will “probably” run as an independent candidate for U.S. President in 2012 if he does not receive the Republican party’s nomination, he told the Wall Street Journal in a video interview on Monday.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/04/1 ... omination/

Talk about making it easy for a 2nd term.....

Why not we are reliving the carter years NOW!
As I've said we DO NOT LEARN from history.

1992 was Clinton btw.... besides a ill advised blowjob and NAFTA, he overall was a pretty good president including working well with a republican house in his 2nd term....

netdude wrote: 1992 was Clinton btw.... besides a ill advised blowjob and NAFTA, he overall was a pretty good president including working well with a republican house in his 2nd term....

rofllol :Whatever: rofllol

I doubt Trump would have a chance. It takes a lot of effort and money to run a political campaign and to get registered as an independent in 50 states. Plus I don't think Trump would like have the press go over his business dealings with a fine tooth comb.

And if the Press thought the Donald had a chance of winning, you would see much more scathing commentary trying to destroy his candidacy.

Thanks SS109 for discussion and not what some on this board like to do, attack and dismiss. I agree with what you said, I just saw the parallels and thought it might be interesting to see peoples thoughts on this, left and right. Perot was much more valid to me than Trump, and a lot less ego..... as I see ego as what is driving Trump.... he has the right to run and what looks like viable support. Another thing I read about Trump, he has stated that IF he runs he won't kick it off till after his reality show, 'The Apprentice' season ends....

I was a Perot supporter in 1992. Just thought an independent voice was needed in Washington who wouldn't be beholden to his campaign donors. I was too young and foolish to realize the 2 parties have tweaked the game to make it difficult for a 3rd Party to participate in a presidential election. I think you have to go all the way back to Wallace and 60's for the last one to actually win an electoral vote.

SS109 wrote: I was a Perot supporter in 1992. Just thought an independent voice was needed in Washington who wouldn't be beholden to his campaign donors. I was too young and foolish to realize the 2 parties have tweaked the game to make it difficult for a 3rd Party to participate in a presidential election. I think you have to go all the way back to Wallace and 60's for the last one to actually win an electoral vote.

I had hoped that Perot would at least have made a good showing, maybe that would have put a scare into the two major parties. Unfortunately Ross went off on a few tangents that ultimately sunk his campaign (I voted for him anyway). I see the same problem with Trump....instead of sticking with what the voters are most concerned about, the economy, jobs....and more jobs....he's out there spouting off about where Obama was born. In the end that is going to hurt him.

There is one big difference imo. When Perot was running, we were not on the edge of an economic cliff like we are now. I think that any candidate that can come to the table with business experience and can debate ecomonic solutions from personal knowledge, will have a good leg up on the competition. However, I think if Trump was to get the nomination, the media would zero in on the important stuff like his hair and the fact that he's an evil rich white guy. They would do the exact same thing with Romney but also focus on his religion, which he will not get a pass on like Obama did.

I think there are better business people out there who would make better candidates. I've got nothing against rich white guys if they are good at what they do. With the Donald I have a hard time getting past the sleaze factor