Yes because Ross Perot did not cost Bush Sr. re-election.


Here’s the truth. Exit polls showed Perot drew votes almost evenly from Clinton and Bush. In the states where Perot did the best—Texas and Florida—Bush still won and took all the Electoral College votes. The truth has hardly mattered to what has become known in political circles as The Perot Myth. During the 2016 election, the political website Five Thirty Eight produced a video trying to dispel the Perot Myth.
The idea that Perot cost Bush the 1992 election is one of the most enduring myths of American politics, and I feel a little guilty popping the bubble; after all, as a newspaper editor said in the movie “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance:” “This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.”


https://www.texasmonthly.com/...election-ross-perot/

In June, Perot led a Gallup poll with 39% of the vote.[26] By mid-July, the Washington Post reported that Perot's campaign managers were becoming increasingly disillusioned by his unwillingness to follow their advice to be more specific on issues,[27] and his need to be in full control of operations[27] with such tactics as forcing volunteers to sign loyalty oaths.[28] Perot's poll numbers began to slip to 25%, and his advisers warned that if he continued to ignore them, he would fall into single digits. Co-manager Hamilton Jordan threatened to quit, and on July 15, Ed Rollins resigned after Perot fired advertisement specialist Hal Riney, who worked with Rollins on the Reagan campaign. Rollins would later claim that a member of the campaign accused him of being a Bush plant with ties to the CIA.[29] Amid the chaos, Perot's support fell to 20%.[30] The next day, Perot announced on Larry King Live that he would not seek the presidency. He explained that he did not want the House of Representatives to decide the election if the result caused the electoral college to be split. Perot eventually stated the reason was that he received threats that digitally altered photographs would be released by the Bush campaign to sabotage his daughter's wedding.[31] Whatever his reasons for withdrawing, his reputation was badly damaged. Many of his supporters felt betrayed and public opinion polls subsequently showed a large negative view of Perot that was absent prior to his decision to end the campaign.[32]
In September, he qualified for all 50 state ballots. On October 1, he announced his intention to re-enter the presidential race. He campaigned in 16 states and spent an estimated $12.3 million of his own money.[33] Perot employed the innovative strategy of purchasing half-hour blocks of time on major networks for infomercial-type campaign advertisements; this advertising garnered more viewership than many sitcoms, with one Friday night program in October attracting 10.5 million viewers.[34]

Perot kinda shot himself in the foot.

I don't dispute the loyalty claim at all. If this was an open election, without an incumbent or pre-Trump, I would agree 100% that Schultz or an independent might pull more from the D side. But I stand by the claim there there is a much larger amount of R's looking for a reason to either not vote or vote for someone other than Trump than there are D's looking for better options. I think the mid-terms showed Ds fired up and several unexpected seats flipped and others came close to losing.

monty wrote:

Just another distraction, like Oprah running. Before him it was that other rich guy that buys all those tv ads to impeach Trump, and before that it was someone else. And after Howard it will be some other distraction, as if having 15 to 20 people running in the dems spot this time around is not enough news.

Now had Bloomberg stayed an independent and ran on that party, that would be a thorn in their side, but he punted and will line up on the same side of the field this time around it looks like..

I will channel my inner JSA and claim that he's in cahoots with Trump to defeat the Dems.

Of course Trump is in cahoots with the Clintons to destroy the GOP.

It's unclear who the Clintons are also in cahoots with or what their ulterior motives might be.

I would just like to point out that I was right. Trump has destroyed the Republican Party, just as I said he was going to do.

And now he's going to destroy the Dems. And the Clintons are behind it all!!! No, wait, Hillary is just a puppet of George Soros! My brain can't process all of this.

Huh? Trump is a jackass. Why would he destroy his own kind?