• Bytemeister@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    Ελληνικά
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    I don’t assume they are 13, but they at least aren’t old enough to remember what happened in 2016.

    • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      4 months ago

      Or any other election year, for that matter. I don’t think a third party candidate has gotten a significant voter block in 100 years.

      • Perfide@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Yep. A third party candidate hasn’t gotten a single electoral college vote since George Wallace, and the only time a third party has done better than either a Democrat or a Republican was with Theodore Roosevelt and his Bull Moose party, which crushed Taft but got absolutely obliterated in turn by Wilson due to the spoiler effect.

      • dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        4 months ago

        Ross Perot got 18.9% of the popular vote in 1992. While he didn’t get any electoral votes he likely prevented a second HW Bush term.

          • MutilationWave@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            Source on this? I was young but I remember that election. Perot seemed to be like some kind of ultracapitalist “run the country like a business” moron that people respected because he was rich. My grandpa loved him and I rarely heard him talk politics. He was also only educated to the sixth grade for what that’s worth.

            Seems like the kind of guy to take a bite out of the conservative vote.

            I’m gonna fix my ignorance and go look him up right now though.

            Edit-- I’m back, learned a lot. I love that he supported electronic direct democracy way back in 1992. He was in favor of gun control and money for AIDS research. Openly supported gay rights in 1996 but notably not until his second campaign when he really had no chance.

            He didn’t believe trickle down economics worked. Was a billionaire who spoke against greed which is really strange. But me calling him an ultracapitalist is probably misplaced. Also not a moron. He was into taxing the wealthy, starting to like this guy, but balancing the budget by cutting social programs, nevermind do not like.

            He opposed outsourcing factory jobs and favored environmental protection. He wanted to decrease the budgets of both the military and NASA. Wanted to cancel the space station.

            Quite the complicated guy. I love some of his policies and hate others. Seems like a weird mix when viewed through a modern lens. I think I’d have considered voting for him if I was ten years older in '92. Probably would have voted for Clinton though who notably achieved one of Perot’s primary goals, which was to balance the budget.

            So I ended up researching Clinton’s campaign and it was straight up racist against black people. He also pledged to end welfare “as we know it”. I think I actually would have voted for Perot! Maybe there’s something to what you’re saying about reducing Clinton’s margin of victory.