From: kemnitz@netcom.com (Greg Kemnitz)
Subject: Re: After Perot
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 21:43:24 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <92202.1230128925129@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at> you write:
>
>Ross Perot has left the race for the presidental election- how has this changed
>the chances of the two remaining candidates?
>
>As I am European, I can judge      only from distance; but from the media it
>seems to me that people felt attracted by Perot for two reasons: he appealed
>to conservative emotions and he embodied protest.

He appealed to people because he said the things that everyone was thinking:
that the basic structure of the US government isn't working, that the two
parties have become far too entrenched, etc.

His conservative bent came out over time, but many otherwise liberal Perot
supporters appeared to ignore this until his gaffe at the NAACP.

>Now I suppose that people with conservative feelings would tend to vote for
>Bush, but people wishing change would tend to vote for Clinton. What is
>gaining now more momentum in the USA?

The latest poll indicated that Clinton's lead since the Demo. convention has
only widened, and is up near 30 points.  Bush's even behind in California's
Orange County - which is the home of huge defense plants, Disneyland,
and people who think Reagan was a good president...

Certainly this may collapse as it did with Dukakis (who had a 17 point lead
coming out of the convention), but it seems that the Demos have learned their
lesson: Clinton is spending most of his time on the road campaigning instead
of hanging out with "advisors" at home while Bush "defines" him.  He also
has a sense of humor and is good with quick one-liners - a useful skill in
American sound-bite politics.

Finally the Demos have come up with someone who isn't a well-connected
party hack but otherwise completely useless or a dweebosaurus rex.

>Timing might also play an important role. Now that Perot has given up,
>Clinton's popularity seems to be at an all-time high; so will the Perot-voters
>swith over to him?

Some will, some won't, and lots probably won't vote.  From what I can see in
Silicon Valley (where Perot had numerous followers), Clinton is gaining far
more than Bush - people remember Bush's barforama in Japan and his 
embarrasing performance at the Earth Summit (after being chased out of Panama
by demonstrators and teargas) far more than they remember anything positive
about him.

If I were Bush, I would reuse the sleaze approach: get so many people turned
off to the election in general that only old rich Republicans vote.  This way
Bush could concievably win with votes from a quarter or less of the American
electorate.  Clinton needs to bring up the level of campaigning, and attack
Bush's sleazemongers themselves.

>
>Or is the whole analysis not adequate?
>
>I would be very interested in opinions from Americans|||

I always feel that everyone has the right to hear my opinion :-)  I won't make
time for contrasting views, since they'll make themselves heard...

>
>
>Guido Schaefer
>Student at
>Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration
>Austria/Europe

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Kemnitz                        | "I ran out of the room - I
MultiMedia Information Systems Inc. | didn't want to be killed by a pile
kemnitz@netcom.com                  | of VMS manuals" :-)
                                    |
                                    | --A friend at DEC Palo Alto in the Quake