Hacker News Reader

Comment by protomyth | Hacker News Reader

You can call him "goofy", but he was anything but. I got to watch him give a speech in Fargo during the 92 campaign and it was amazing. At the time, I got into the habit of reading each candidates "book" they put out during the election. His was short, to the point, and very specific on what needed fixing. He was a serious man that ran into the establishment and got hammered.

View on HN

Didn't he also "disappear" (from the public eye) during a crucial point in the campaign? My memory of this is hazy as I was only 12 at the time, but I recall my father being interested in his candidacy, but then around July or August he withdrew from the campaign. Then re-entered in September or October, so he came across as "flaky".

He talked about a conspiracy by the Republicans to ruin his daughters wedding. I thought he was crazy at the time, but now I believe him.

I remember his hour long presentations with the flip charts of how things were screwed up.

Too bad he didn’t win. Instead we got the scumbag Clintons.

At the time, I thought it was all conspiracies and a really weird publicity stunt. I had no intention of voting for Bush or Clinton, so I went ahead and voted for Perot.

Looking back, and seeing some of the stuff that has come out about the other candidates, I too now believe it was all true.

Bill Clinton left office with a 60+% approval rating, higher than Reagan when he left. Bill won both elections with 370+ electoral votes. I think the American people were mostly pleased.

Public opinion often has very little to do with what is actually good for the country.

GDP and jobs grew more under Clinton than Reagan too.

They were definitely good years for the economy.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-08-01/rankin...

Sugar high as we sold out the middle class (look at any wage data)

That's cherry picking numbers somewhat.

Clinton never got a majority of the popular vote. A mere 43% in 1992 and 49.2% in 1996.

Contrast that with Obama's 52.9% in 2008 and 51.1% in 2012.

Or Reagan's 50.4% in 1980 and 58.8% smashing in 1984.

Reagan was obviously a lot more popular with the electorate than Bill Clinton and it shows in the only way that ultimately matters: votes. Approval ratings are at best bullshit, at worst they're aggressive propaganda from the corporate media machine to favor their candidates.

Votes are not a measure of approval. They are a measure of preference within a highly constrained ballot and FPTP game theory.

> Clinton never got a majority of the popular vote. A mere 43% in 1992 and 49.2% in 1996.

Doesn't change your point, really, but for completion, a Clinton also got a non-majority 48.2% in 2016.

Same with my parents.

He dropped out of the race to get away from bad press, the establishment players kinda forced him out with dirt-digging.

I think he thought it would help, but when he re-entered he was worse off.

I also remember him doing well in the debates, but his VP pick, Admiral Stockdale, badly flubbed the VP debate.

Yeah, he was pretty disconnected. You're not making the grade if even Dan Quayle is chuckling at you.

For a long time after that I only remembered Admiral Stockdale as the guy who had his hearing aid shut off during the debate. I didn't realize his history — he was a real intellectual, with a love of Stoic philosophy, but he determined on the active life of a Naval Aviator. He ejected over North Vietnam and was captured and subjected to torture. To avoid being used for propaganda, he disfigured himself by cutting his scalp with a razor and beating his face with a chair. When he gained information that could be used to reveal others' attempts to subvert the North Vietnamese, he slit his wrists to avoid being tortured into a confession. He conducted himself heroically in a war that was anything but, and earned the respect of his fellow-prisoners and his captors, and he gives credit to the philosophy of Epictetus, especially as contained in his Enchiridion.

(And to be fair to Stockdale, he only was informed of the debate one week in advance. He was not a skilled debater, though, to be sure.)

Me too. At the time, the SNL parody was how I remember it. Only later did I learn what an amazing hero, intellectual and person Stockdale was.

Looking back, I guess the buck stops with Perot, he should certainly have given his VP more advance notice, and maybe some coaching in public speaking, TV, PR.

Perot is a good example of how it is impossible for good, smart, outside-of-the-establishment people to get elected in this media environment.

Perot did better than he should have! Getting 20% is better than any third party candidate since Teddy Roosevelt.

He was a nicer Donald Trump.

This isn't true at all, Perot actually succeeded at business.

Couldn't upvote more, but Trump did succeed at show business. Have to give him that. Every platform is a stage for him.

Did Trump not? Or is that up in the air since his records aren’t public?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com