1992 and 1996 it was Ross Perot who made the deficit an issue. His anti-NAFTA rhetoric also had an appeal to workers who felt there jobs had been taken or were under threat due to foreign competition. Along with the war on terror these seem to be the major issues in this year's campaign. Haven't checked the numbers but it always seemed to me that Ross's chief appeal was to white, blue-collar male voters who are often somewhat conservative on social issues but find certain economic policies, chiefly championed by Democrats, attractive; in other words swing voters. Would not have voted for Ross in the first place if they were deeply tied to either of the two major parties. Ok, he is 73, but what does a VP really have to do?

The questions:

Would Kerry pick Ross for VP?

Would Perot accept?

Would Perot's presence on the ticket improve Kerry's chances of winning the election?

You're kidding, right?

No, Not Applicable, and an emphatic NO, in that order.

Kerry -- as the head of the Democratic ticket -- would not pick a non-Democratic Party person for the #2 spot. Just won't happen.

Perot didn't come close in either '92 or '96, because he appealed to the "angry middle", but that's not enough to win an election. He also came across as a nut. All this does not equal "impove Kerry's chances". If Kerry wants the angry middle, he has Gov. Dean to pick. Most likely, he'll aim for someone who can make a great cheerleader and give a great stump speech.

Perot got more votes than any third party candidate in history. Many still claim he was responsible for the first Bush's defeat. While he came across nutty to some, to many others he was a refreshing breath of fresh air from the packaged candidates of our era. I do not foresee that many people would vote against Kerry due to the choice of Perot, I do think some would vote for him due to this choice.

I think Ross would accept. But I agree Kerry picking him is most unlikely. Thinking outside of the box does not occur often in American politics.

That's the thing....Perot doesn't have to win outright, he needs to win some of the "angry middle" (as opposed to the "angry left" which Kerry has locked up..)

The thing about Kerry is that he does not have anything to draw voters to him, except the die hard Democrats and the Anyone But Bush crowd.

Even Hillary Clinton would provide Kerry no additional voters.

In my opinion, Kerry will select either:

1. A young, good-looking Veep (John Edwards)
2. A fairly Conservative Democrat ( )
3. An "outsider", most likely with specialized knowledge which might appeal to middle America (an Alan Greenspan type, or a Ross Perot type).

I have no idea who Kerry will (or should) pick, but Ross Perot would meet at least 1 of my criteria.

Would Kerry pick Ross for VP?

Assuming that Kerry and his backers actually want to have a chance at winning, I would bet every thing I own that he would not pick Ross. In fact, I would borrow as much money as creditors would lend to beef up that bet. That is if I could find one single person who would take it.

Would Perot accept?

I really have no idea. With Ross, you just never know. Maybe that babbling Admiral guy who ran as his VP candidate will talk him into it?

Would Perot's presence on the ticket improve Kerry's chances of winning the election?

I'm still trying to figure out if Hugo is being serious, is starting a shrewd rumour that Kerry is considering Perot (for which the Bushwackers will blame Karl Rove-we at AD will know better), or is just trying to bring some levity to debate (which I personally find refreshing).

In all seriousness, I would say that there are five words that can explain why "Perot's presence on the ticket" would not "improve Kerry's chances of winning the election". The five words are - Dana, Carvey, Saturday, Night, and Live. While I don't have any links to scientific evidence that might back up my opinion, I am confident that anyone who is so inclined can find and view Dana's many portrayals of Ross "Can I finish Larry? Can I...Can I finish? CanIfinishcanIfinishcanIfinish?" Perot. Fairly or unfairly, Dana's side-splitting portrayals of Ross on Saturday Night Live as well as in his last stand-up appearances just may have turned Perot into the "third rail" of potential VP candidates.

The problem with that logic is the fact that Bush is regularly lampooned on Late Night TV. Pretty much every night on Leno. Not exactly in a favorable light, either. That certainly won't stop Bush's re-election bid.

A successful business leader, to me, would lend serious credibility to the Kerry campaign.

It won't be Ross, of course (Kerry is the exact type of politician he ran against in 1992 and 1996...). But Kerry needs something to bring in additional voting demographics...

Well, I thought I was clear that I had no scientific evidence to support my opinion but I guess I should have said that I wasn't even trying to be all that logical either. Really more of an educated guess I suppose.

Of course, all of the Presidents (and Presidential candidates) have been lampooned on SNL going back to Dan Ackroyd's Dick Nixon. I suppose someone with more time and money than I have could conduct a more accurate analysis of how effective each castmember's various portrayals has been in diminishing a candidates "electability". It is just my opinion that Dana Carvey's portrayal of Perot was particularly funny, damaging, and believable. I wouldn't be surprised if they mention Dana next to Perot in the history books. His Bush Sr. portrayals are classic as well, devastating even. Darryl Hammond's Clinton/Gore portrayals are priceless. I love Will Farrell and I chuckle at his GW, but it always seemed a little overdone to me.

I don't think the Carvey/Perot vs. Farrell/GW comparison holds up though Amlord. For one thing, GW is the President. Perot is.............?

Now this is what I call a refreshing topic for debate!

Would Kerry pick Ross for VP?

No and verse two is that Ross wouldn't want to be #2 on anyone's ticket.

Would Perot accept?

No..he finally came to the conclusion that he is better at promoting other candidates than himself in the political arena.

Would Perot's presence on the ticket improve Kerry's chances of winning the election?

How I would love to see a Kerry/Perot ticket! But, I am afraid it would be Kerry's and Perot's worst nightmare not to mention that of the Democratic Party!

I personally think Ross loved the limelight and that he as much a Democrat as Wesley Clark with more appeal to moderate voters. He was the only third-party candidate in the 20th Century to exceed 5% of the vote in consecutive elections. Having worked in a blue collar environment most of my life I saw the appeal that Perot had to many blue collar workers. Kerry voted for NAFTA, no one opposed NAFTA any louder than Perot, it balances the ticket on an issue that Edwards attacked Kerry with in the primaries. He manages to be anti-NAFTA without projecting the liberal ideology so many swing voters reject. What some consider nuttiness others revere as Trumanesque, a no-nonsense, take me as I am candidate.

Perot percentage of votes 1996:

Ohio 11
Michigan 9
Missouri 10
Pennsylvania 10

I would say that 40% of the voters will vote for Bush regardless of anything that happens in the campaign. I would say that 40% will vote for Kerry no matter what. This leaves about 20% to decide the election. To the 80% the VP choice does not matter, to a portion of the 20% it will. Let me see, that nut got 19% of the popular vote in 1992.

Yeah, and it was down to 8% in the '96 election. And 0% in 2000 (I know , he didn't run, I wonder why?). Besides, most of the political analysts I have heard over the years minimize or dismiss the Veep choice as significant. But I suppose you could be right Hugo. Those 8% who voted for Perot in '96, minus the ones of those who would vote Kerry anyway, could just provide that extra margin to give Kerry the keys. I just don't think we will ever get a chance to find out. Though I'd bet Dana Carvey would love the idea of one more "Can I finish? Can I finish?" candidacy. His faltering career could certainly use the material.

To follow Amlord's model, I would guess that Kerry would go with:

1. A young, good-looking type (John Edwards)
2. A southern or mid-western type (John Edwards, Bob Graham, Wesley Clarke)
3. An elder statesman type (Bob Graham)
4. An "outsider", ideally with appeal to moderate Republicans (John McCain, Wesley Clarke)

Ross Perot is none of the above (though moderate Republicans may feel free to correct me, if I'm wrong).

Maybe we should address who the Perot voters were. From Rapoport and Stone's study:



First I believe the two parties are as polarized as ever. It is the independents that will decide this election. Perot certainly drew votes from moderate Democrats and Republicans in his two campaigns, and brought in new voters.

That election happened to be the first one that I was old enough
to participate in. And, yes, I voted for Perot. If Perot ran as
Kerry's V.P. he would stand a greater chance of getting my vote.

Another study on who the Perot voters were. From www.greenbergresearch.com:


"The Perot voter, excepting the under 30 group, have a largely Republican voting
history. Among those over 50, 73 percent had voted for either Reagan or Bush, falling to a very respectable 67 percent for those 30 to 50 years of age; a good 55 percent of all these over 30 voters voted Republican in all but one presidential election. Among all Perot voters, 62 percent had voted for Reagan at least once and 62 percent for Bush in 1988."

Looks like a lot of moderate Republicans to me.

Okay, then, let me modify my fourth speculative type to:

4. An "outsider", ideally with appeal to moderate Republicans, who doesn't look too much like Dennis Kucinich

Now Ross Perot is definitelt none of the above. Seriously, though, I suspect that Perot is about as likely to be a Democratic VP contender as Stephen Forbes.

An interesting idea had not Perot's politics since '92 not deviated to the degree it did. I voted Perot in '92 and I am not sure that was the right choice. Not because of the Republican split but the ultimate damage he did to third party candidates. His constant forcing of his own ego down our throats has cast a shadow on the 'ego' of every future third party. The question is, how can anybody's ego be larger than the major party candidates? This is a mute point as far as I am concerned.

Let us try this. How about Ralph Nader for V.P? It will keep Kerry focussed more on his base, eliminate the opposition he would pose and allow himself a little more freedom to venture into that so-called 'abyss' of the center! Keep the fiscal policies but find that center on domestic issues (because Nader has the left covered on this)? Besides, I would dig a Nader vs. Cheney V.P. debate.

People want to see a real fight in November; I am convinced of it.

Nader for Veep does have a point - it ends Nader's independent bid, and maybe it's the only thing that can. But same as picking Kucinich for Veep, Nader appeals not to the middle but to the hard left.

Perot does appeal to the middle and might help Kerry in the general election, but I have a hard time believing Kerry would do it or that the Democratic Party would be very thrilled about it.

Same with McCain for Veep, only more so. Kerry probably wouldn't do it, McCain probably wouldn't accept it, and though it would help with swing voters, it doesn't make ideological sense. Though McCain is kind of a maverick and he and Kerry are personal friends, he is still really a conservative Republican with an 80% conservative Senate voting record for last year (ACU).

To tell y'all the truth I think the Dems picked the wrong Kerry to head the ticket. If they really wanted to appeal to swing voters, they should have gone with Bob Kerry, not John Kerry. Heck, I might have voted for Bob Kerry myself.

So everyone who votes for Kerry is either die-hard Democrats or ABB. Typical Republican response. It doesn't even hit you that people who are independent( like myself) would vote for Kerry because he appeals to me. Granted, Kerry has problems just like Bush, but Bush records stands out and I say that in the worse way. So lets not get narrow-minded in terms of the type of voters the candidates may appeal in this country.

Secondly, a Kerry/Nader ticket certainly sounds appealing, but will it gurantee a win in November. Stay tuned!!

I too voted for Perot in '92 but I wouldn't vote for him again in any election.

However, I think the Kerry/Liberman ticket would do pretty well. Liberman has stood out this election cycle as a Democrate that conservitives can actually look at with out spite or ill will.

Kerry is going to need a very moderate VP to offset his stance (or lack there of) on the issues. Liberman although still a liberal is a very moderate one. I still belive it was the fact that he was on the Gore ticket that got Gore so close.

He may be bland, but the country has been through two Presidents who were robust and out spoken on their views. Maybe bland is good?

I agree his odds of being chosen as the candidate are low. I think he would help Kerry. His supporters tend to be avid ones. I would love to see a Cheney/ Perot debate, talk about a contrast of personalities.

Wouldn't be to hard for Cheney to make up something in his mind that isn't true. Perot will just shoot off the mouth.

Well, I must admit that as outrageous as it sounds, you make it sound rather logical! The reasons why you listed him as a credible candidate is perhaps a key reason why some people are so mesmerized by a potential Kerry-McCain ticket. What a better way to snatch up the blue-collar NASCAR dad vote with McCain and allow him at the same time, to get back at the man who hit him hard in South Carolina with fly by night phone calls by volunteers lying about his record??

I just don't believe the party regulars would go for Ross though. He's rather vague on the social issues, and party powers like NARAL, and feminist groups would really raise a storm if he got on.