THE 1992 ELECTIONS - DISAPPOINTMENT -- NEWS ANALYSIS An Eccentric but No Joke - Perot's Strong Showing Raises Questions On What Might Have Been, and Might Be - NYTimes.com THE 1992 ELECTIONS: DISAPPOINTMENT -- NEWS ANALYSIS An Eccentric but No Joke; Perot's Strong Showing Raises Questions On What Might Have Been, and Might Be By STEVEN A. HOLMES, Published: November 5, 1992 DALLAS, Nov. 4— Ross Perot, a political neophyte who said and did enough bizarre things during the Presidential campaign to allow his critics to brand him as an eccentric or worse, scored a more impressive showing than any third-party candidate since Theodore Roosevelt ran on the Bull Moose ticket 80 years ago. More than 19 million people voted for him Tuesday. And though he personally campaigned in only 16 states, Mr. Perot received more than 20 percent of the vote in 31. He actually finished second in Utah. He finished third in every other state, but in one, Maine, he pulled 30 percent of the vote.

A performance that strong tempts speculation about what might have been. What if Mr. Perot had stayed in the race through the summer and fall instead of dropping out for months? What if he had not appeared on "60 Minutes" the week before the election and made unsubstantiated accusations about the Republican Party and his daughter's wedding? Money Was No Problem To be sure, some of Mr. Perot's strength must be laid to his own formidable resources. Third-party or independent candidates of the past could not buy half-hours on all three networks as if they were campaign buttons, and they generally could not afford to subsidize the effort to get themselves on the ballot in all 50 states. Mr. Perot could not have done what he did without his own tens of millions, as he would be the first to acknowledge. Still, the public was under no obligation to respond to his appeal, and it does appear that Mr. Perot may have mobilized a brand new army, one that is primarily under 45 and one that considers itself neither Republican nor Democrat, but independent -- all the more fitting since Mr. Perot did not run on a party label. The Perot army is overwhelmingly white. Mr.

Perot did best in states where the black population is below the national average of 12 percent, receiving 22.7 percent of the vote in those states. In states where the black population is above average, Mr. Perot received 13.1 percent of the vote. Thirty-four states have black populations below 12 percent. In 16 states and the District of Columbia, more than 12 percent of the population is black. A deep distrust of politicians is another distinguishing mark of Mr. Perot's camp. In interviews with voters leaving the polls, conducted by Voter Research and Surveys, 57 percent of the Perot voters agreed that the Government would work better if the voters got rid of all elected officials and selected new ones this year. By comparison, 48 percent of all voters surveyed felt that way. Can't Even Stop It What the Perot partisans will do, with or without him, is a question that is no doubt nagging leaders of both major parties. In a briefing today, Perot aides made clear they intend to try to turn United We Stand, America, the grass-roots organization Mr. Perot helped found and nurture, into a permanent group.

"Are we going to keep this thing going?" said Orson G. Swindle 3d, executive director of the organization and Mr. Perot's campaign manager. "In all candor, there's no way we can stop it. This is truly a phenomenon that is unparalleled in the history of our country, politically." Mr. Swindle's prideful sentiments notwithstanding, the impact of Mr. Perot's supporters on the campaign's outcome appears to have been minimal. If Mr. Perot had not been on the ballot, 38 percent of his voters said, they would have voted for Gov. Bill Clinton, and 38 percent said they would have voted for President Bush. Of the 31 states where Mr. Perot garnered more than 20 percent, 17 were won by Mr. Clinton and 14 by Mr. Bush. A Breeze, Not a Storm "Perot may have breathed some fresh air into the campaign, in terms of his personality, but the outcome doesn't appear to have been influenced by him at all," said David Bositis, senior research fellow at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies. Whether United We Stand will continue to play a significant role is a question.

The group languished between the time Mr. Perot quit the race in July and his re-entry last month. And on Tuesday and today, Ross Perot Jr. left little doubt his father would rather be on the sidelines. But the large block of angry and energized Perot voters, having seen the strength of their numbers and having had their frustrations and their concern about the economy and the budget deficit articulated, will be a factor to be considered by Mr. Clinton as he waltzes gingerly between deficit reduction and fiscal stimulation. Interviews at Mr. Perot's rallies indicate that many of his followers are small-business owners, and Mr. Clinton may have to be careful if he tries to impose a raft of government mandates on them. Guaranteed a Voice Charles Jones, a professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin, took note of the Perot potential: "Any time he wants to serve as a kind of monitor of the new administration, he can do that by buying TV time. Or he could just go on Larry King or the rest of the talk shows." If Bill Clinton must look over his shoulder, neither can the Republican Party, now picking its way through the wreckage of what used to be its winning coalition, take any joy in Mr.

Perot's looming presence. Certainly Mr. Perot espoused a kind of fiscal conservatism and toward the end of his campaign a strong law-and-order theme. But he also drew cheers when he staunchly defended a woman's right to choose an abortion and when he bashed the religious right. Indeed, in the voter survey, only 34 percent of Mr. Perot's voters said they attended religious services at least once a week, compared with 42 percent in the survey sample as a whole. Mr. Perot's army seems to include a strong libertarian streak: people seeking a measure of freedom from what they perceive as the heavy hand of institutions, religious as well as governmental. If the fundamentalist right holds sway in the coming battle for the soul of the Republican Party, Perot followers could go elsewhere. A Moderate, in Fact "What was different about Ross Perot is that he was a moderate," said Frank I. Luntz, who served as Mr. Perot's poll taker early in the campaign and predicted that the Texan would get 20 percent of the vote. "How often do we have a third-party candidate who is a moderate?" Mr.

Perot also demonstrated that voters yearned for information on candidates without having to sift it through the traditional filter of the news media. His use of talk shows and the consistently high ratings of his 30-minute and hourlong commercials indicated a voter preference for direct communication from the candidate, for substance over attacks or mawkish advertisements. "We showed that you don't have to run 30-second or one-minute ads; 'Good Morning America,' or 'Morning in America' -- gauzy commercials that look like you're selling margarine," said Clayton Mulford, the campaign's general counsel and Mr. Perot's son-in-law. Some experts say that it will be virtually impossible for a candidate to duplicate Mr. Perot's effort unless he has a personal fortune and finds the country once again in such a foul mood. But if the Republican and Democratic parties conclude that they can ignore the lessons of the Ross Perot phenomenon, they will do so at their peril. Charts: "What Perot's Voters Said" That if Ross perot had not been on the ballot today, they would have voted for?... Clinton 38 Bush 38 Other 6 Would not have voted 14 That these issues mattered most in deciding how they voted?

Economy/jobs 53 Federal deficit 42 That they usually think of themselves as...? Republican 31 Democrat 26 Independent 43 That the debates were very important in making their choice 57% Yes 43% No That their perception of the candidate's ability to bring about needed change was one of the things that mattered most in deciding how to vote? 44% Yes 56% No (Based on interviews by Voter Research & Surveys with 15,240 voters leaving polling places throughout the country on Tuesday.) "The Odd Man In: Strongest Third-Party Finishes" Minor party candidates and the percentage of the popular vote they received. Their major party competitors are in italic type. Elections are ordered by the size of the minor party vote: only candidates winning more than 1 percent ofthe vote ar shown 1912 Theodore Roosevelt (Progressive) - 27.39% Eugene V. Debs (Socialist) - 5.99% Eugene W. Chafin (Prohibition) - 1.38% Woodrow Wilson (D) - 41.84% William H.

Taft (R) - 23.18% 1992 Ross Perot (Independent) - 18.78% Bill Clinton (D) - 42.97% George Bush (R) - 37.49% 1924 Robert M. LaFollette (Progressive) - 16.56% Calvin Coolidge (R) - 54.06% John W. Davis (D) - 28.84% 1968 George C. Wallace (American Independent) - 13.53% Richard M. Nixon (R) - 43.42% Hubert H. Humphrey (D) - 42.72% 1980 John B. Anderson (Independent) - 6.6% Ronald Reagan (R) - 50.7% Jimmy Carter (D) - 41.0% 1920 Eugene V. Debs (Socialist) - 3.42% Warren G. Harding (R) - 60.30% James M.

Cox (D) - 34.17% 1980 Allan L. Benson (Socialist) - 3.18% J. Frank Hanley (Prohibition) - 1.19% Woodrow Wilson (D) - 49.24% Charles E. Hughes (R) - 46.11% 1904 Eugene V. Debs (Socialist) - 2.98% Silas C. Swallow (Prohibition) - 1.91% Theodore Roosevelt (R) - 56.41% Alton Parker (D) - 37.60% 1908 Eugene V. Debs (Socialist) - 2.82% Eugene F. Chafin (Prohibition) - 1.70% William H. Taft (R) - 51.58% William J. Bryan (D) - 43.05% 1948 J. Strom Thurmond (States' Rights Democrat) - 2.40% Henry A.

Wallace (Progressive) - 2.38% Harry S. Truman (D) - 49.51% Thomas E. Dewey (R) - 45.12% 1932 Norman M. Thomas (Socialist) - 2.22% Franklin D. Roosevelt (D) - 57.42% Herbert C. Hoover (R) - 39.64% 1936 William Lemke (Union) - 1.96% Franklin D. Roosevelt (D) - 60.79% Alfred M. Landon (R) - 36.54% 1900 John G. Woolley (Prohibition) - 1.50% William McKinley (R) - 51.67% William J. Bryan (D) - 45.51% 1972 John G. Schmitz (American) - 1.40% Richard M. Nixon (R) - 60.69% George S.

McGovern (D) - 37.53% (Source: Congressional Quarterly, Guide to U.S. Elections.) Map: "How the Nation Voted: Where Perot Ran Strongest" showa states where Ross Perot, the independent Presidential candidate, got 20 percent or more of the vote. THE 1992 ELECTIONS - PRESIDENT -- THE OVERVIEW - CLINTON CAPTURES PRESIDENCY WITH HUGE ELECTORAL MARGIN - WINS A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS - NYTimes.com THE 1992 ELECTIONS: PRESIDENT -- THE OVERVIEW THE 1992 ELECTIONS: PRESIDENT -- THE OVERVIEW; CLINTON CAPTURES PRESIDENCY WITH HUGE ELECTORAL MARGIN; WINS A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS By ROBIN TONER Published: November 4, 1992 Gov. Bill Clinton of Arkansas was elected the 42d President of the United States yesterday, breaking a 12-year Republican hold on the White House. Mr. Clinton shattered the Republicans' political base with a promise of change to an electorate clearly discontented with President Bush.

Ross Perot, the Texas billionaire who roiled this race throughout, finished third, drawing roughly equally from both major party candidates, according to Voter Research & Surveys, the television polling consortium. His share of the popular vote had the potential to exceed any third-party candidate's in more than half a century. Faithful Are Won Back The President-elect, capping an astonishing political comeback for the Democrats over the last 18 months, ran strongly in all regions of the country and among many groups that were key to the Republicans' dominance of the 1980's: Catholics, suburbanites, independents, moderates and the Democrats who crossed party lines in the 1980's to vote for Ronald Reagan and Mr. Bush. The Governor from Arkansas won such big, closely contested states as Michigan, Missouri, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Illinois. As polls closed across the nation, networks announced projected winners based on voter surveys. It was Ohio that put him over the top shortly before 11 P.M., followed closely by California. Based on those projections, Mr. Bush prevailed in his adopted state of Texas and other pockets of Republican states around the country. With 83 percent of the nation's precincts reporting by 3 A.M.

today, Mr. Clinton had 43 percent to 38 percent for Mr. Bush and 18 percent for Mr. Perot. A state-by-state breakdown of those returns gave the President-elect more than 345 electoral votes, a commanding victory in the Electoral College, which requires 270 for election. His victory also provided coattails for Democrats running for Congress in the face of tough Republican challenges: Democrats, who control both chambers, appeared likely to gain in the Senate and suffer manageable losses in the House. 'With High Hopes' In a victory speech to a joyous crowd in Little Rock, Mr. Clinton declared, "On this day, with high hopes and brave hearts, in massive numbers, the American people have voted to make a new beginning." He described the election as a "clarion call" to deal with a host of domestic problems too long ignored and to "bring our nation together." He paid tribute to the voters he had met along the campaign trail, saying they had simply demanded that "we want our future back." The President-elect, who looked euphoric and seemed to savor every cheer, added, "I intend to give it to you." He also hailed his longtime rival, Mr.

Bush, for "his lifetime of public service" and the "grace with which he conceded this election." "Not very long ago I received a telephone call from President Bush," the President-elect said. "It was a generous and forthcoming telephone call, of real congratulations and an offer to work with me in keeping our democracy running in an effective and important transition." The crowd hailed the victor repeatedly with cries of "We love you, Bill," especially when he paid tribute to his home state, the object of Republican ridicule throughout the campaign. Mr. Clinton credited much of his success to his wife, Hillary, who was also a target of Republican attacks. The Clintons and their daughter, Chelsea, were joined by Vice President-elect Al Gore and his family, creating once again the tableau of youth and generational change that they projected throughout the campaign. Mr. Gore and Mr. Clinton embraced in jubilant bear hug. Bush Gives Concession Mr. Bush, looking weary but composed, made his concession speech shortly after 11 P.M. in Houston. "The people have spoken and we respect the majesty of the Democratic system," he said. Mr. Bush congratulated Mr. Clinton, but did not mention Mr.

Perot, and promised that his own Administration would "work closely with his team to insure the smooth transition of power." Vice President Dan Quayle made his concession speech in Indianapolis a few minutes later and like Mr. Bush congratulated Mr. Clinton and hushed the boos. "We must all pull together now. If he runs the country as well as he ran the campaign, we'll be all right." Congressional leaders said they welcomed the new era beyond divided government. "We welcome the challenge and the responsibility," said Senator George Mitchell of Maine, the majority leader. There were other signs of change: California elected two women to the Senate, in Representative Barbara Boxer and the former San Francisco Mayor Dianne Feinstein. Illinois also elected a woman, Carol Moseley Braun, to the Senate, as did Washington State, which chose Patty Murray.. Mr. Perot made his concession speech in remarkably good spirits and seemed intent on signaling that he was not leaving the political stage. "This is not the time to get discouraged," he said.

"This is the time to redouble our efforts, to make sure we live in alabaster cities undimmed by human tears." 1 1992 presidential election Brian Zylstra Ross Perot during his 1992 speech in Olympia. (Photo courtesy Washington State Digital Archives) The upcoming Washington Presidential Primary is generating tons of buzz and anticipation as candidates are expected to hold rallies in our state in the coming days and weeks. It’s always exciting when presidential candidates come to our corner of the country! With the PrezPrimary looming, a recent visit to our Digital Archives turned up this classic shot: Remember Ross Perot? He was the Texas multimillionaire who ran for president as a Reform Party candidate in 1992. The photo shows him in Olympia in July of 1992 at a big rally on the Capitol steps. Perot had an impact, winning 24 percent of the vote in Washington, among his strongest showings in the country. He gathered nearly 20 million votes nationwide and finished third. That year’s election saw Bill Clinton defeat incumbent George H.W. Bush to become America’s 42nd president.

United States presidential election of 1992 | United States government | Britannica.com United States presidential election of 1992 United States government Republican Party United States presidential election of 1992, American presidential election held on Nov. 3, 1992, in which Democrat Bill Clinton defeated incumbent Republican Pres. George Bush . Independent candidate Ross Perot secured nearly 19 percent of the vote—the highest percentage of any third-party candidate in a U.S. presidential election in 80 years. Results of the American presidential election, 1992… Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. The campaign Typically, incumbent presidents face little opposition in securing renomination, but Bush faced a stiff early challenge from conservative commentator Pat Buchanan . At the Republican National Convention in 1988, Bush had pledged to the delegates that he would resist any tax increases, giving his famous “read my lips” pledge. But in 1990, in an attempt to cope with a soaring budget deficit, Bush reneged on that pledge, earning him the enmity of his conservative supporters and the distrust of many voters who had backed him in 1988.

Buchanan led an insurgent campaign against Bush, capturing nearly 37 percent of the vote in the New Hampshire primary. Despite the challenge, Bush went on to win the Republican nomination, though his candidacy was wounded. George Bush. Patrick Buchanan. Diana Walker—Time Life Pictures/Getty Images The Democratic race was intense. With Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin running, the major Democratic candidates skipped the Iowa caucuses . The front-runner appeared to be Clinton, but other candidates, in particular former California governor Jerry Brown and former Massachusetts senator Paul Tsongas, hoped to secure the nomination. Just before the New Hampshire primary, Clinton’s campaign was nearly derailed by widespread press coverage of his alleged 12-year affair with an Arkansas woman, Gennifer Flowers. In a subsequent interview watched by millions of viewers on the television news program 60 Minutes , Clinton and his wife admitted to having marital problems. Clinton’s popularity soon rebounded, and, though Tsongas won in New Hampshire, Clinton scored a strong second-place showing—a performance for which he labeled himself the “Comeback Kid.” Clinton would nearly sweep the Southern primaries held on March 10—the so-called Super Tuesday—and by mid-March Tsongas would withdraw from the contest.

Still, Brown continued to challenge Clinton, who had not amassed the requisite number of delegates to secure the Democratic nomination until June 2, when he defeated Brown in California and several other states. Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton and his wife, Hillary, and daughter, Chelsea, in Little Rock, Ark., on … AP United States presidential election of 1972 With Clinton suffering from personal scandals and facing a tough primary race and with Bush weakened by a faltering economy, the conditions were ripe for a third-party bid. In February, while a guest on CNN’s Larry King Live , billionaire businessman Ross Perot announced that he would run for president if supporters would file petitions enabling him to be on the ballot in all 50 states. Perot initially earned widespread popularity, particularly among voters dissatisfied with traditional party politics. He reached out to both Democrats and Republicans, hiring former operatives from each party to advise his campaign. Polls in May and June showed Perot leading both Clinton and Bush, but in July, with Clinton’s support increasing on the eve of the Democratic National Convention, Perot unexpectedly dropped from the race. Ross Perot at the second U.S. presidential debate of 1992.

© Archive Photos/Consolidated News Clinton chose as his running mate Tennessee Sen. Al Gore —a curious choice, as both hailed from the South. But, with Gore’s centrist credentials added to those of Clinton’s, the move was politically astute , inoculating the Democrats against charges of being tax-and-spend liberals and, in particular, weak on defense (Gore had been one of only 10 Democratic senators to authorize the use of force against Iraq in 1991 in the Persian Gulf War ). The campaign seemed likely to be a battle between the Clinton-Gore team and that of Bush and his vice president, Dan Quayle , and Clinton-Gore maintained a sizeable lead over the incumbent ticket. In September, however, Perot returned to the campaign trail and selected former admiral James Stockdale as his vice presidential running mate.

Although Perot’s support began low—particularly as many former supporters did not warm to his second candidacy—Perot, spending $65 million of his own money and with his opposition to the North American Free Trade Agreement (supported by both Bush and Clinton), his focus on eliminating the country’s budget deficit and national debt, and his nontraditional campaign, in which he focused on 30-minute infomercial-style advertisements and appeared on the stump to deliver speeches only rarely, saw his support increase as election day neared. Democratic presidential nominee Bill Clinton (right) and his running mate, Al Gore, raising their … Marcy Nighswander/AP 1992 Presidential Elections Tweet 1992 Elections Bush vs Clinton As the election campaign of 1992 neared, the incumbent President, George Bush, held a commanding lead in the polls, over any and all potential rivals. Bush had been the Commander-In-Chief presiding over the most decisive American military victory since World War II, The Gulf War. He had also directed American Foreign Policy as the Soviets Union fell apart. As a result, most of the leading Democratic candidates declined to run. The Democrats held a long primary process.

At the close of the primary process, Bill Clinton, the sitting governor of Arkansas, emerged as the leading Democratic presidential candidate. Clinton was favored, despite charges he dodged the draft and was unfaithful to his wife. His wife, Hilary Rodham Clinton stood by him, throughout the barrage of allegations. As a result, Clinton was able secure and obtain the presidential nomination on the first ballot at the Democratic Convention. From the time of the Democratic convention, Governor Clinton held a commanding lead in the polls over President Bush. Bush's campaign was hobbled by troubled economy. The campaign revolved primarily around economic issues. The ending of the cold war, for which Republicans took credit, perversely worked against them. No longer could they claim superiority by pushing Americans to question: "Do you trust the Democrats to stand up to the Russians?" The third party candidacy of Ross Perot was a true wild card in the campaign. Perot, a self made billionaire, ran a one-issue campaign; deficit reduction. Early polls showed Perot as a leading candidate. However, his decision to first withdraw from the campaign and then reenter it, caused him to lose much of his early support. Bush ran a rather listless campaign that failed to connect with voters.

He seemed completely disconnected from the needs of the average American. Clinton's image of youth convinced enough Americans looking for change to vote for him. For the first time in a decade many voted for a Democrat, sealing Clintonís victory Particpation of Eligible Voters 55.1% > About American history and world history can be found at historycental- History's home on the web. Explore our complete time lines of major events in American history as well as World History. Research our special sections on diverse subjects ranging from presidential elections to naval history. Whatever aspect of history you wish learn about, you will find it at Historycentral.com Facebook 10 Guys Who Weren't Republicans or Democrats But Still Kicked Ass - Listverse Kevin Martinez October 31, 2012 In the light of the coming up election in the United States, I have compiled a list relevant to Americans’ historical attitudes when it comes to electing the ‘’leader of the free world’’. The United States has had throughout most of its history a two party system, arguably a consequence of the Electoral College vote, This system has effectively prevented a third party from gaining the ultimate goal in election cycles, The Presidency.

However this does not mean that minor parties have not played a major role in American politics. Below a list of the most successful and influential third party presidential bids in US history. 10 William Wirt Anti-Masonic Party 1832 (7.6% votes) After leaving Washington, D.C., Attorney General William Wirt was ran an unsuccessful candidacy for President in the 1832 as the candidate of the Anti-Masonic party. This was perhaps ironic because he was, in fact, a former Freemason and, according to some sources, even gave a speech at an early Anti-Masonic convention defending the organization although it has also been said that he regretted his membership afterwards. The Anti-Masonic Party holds the distinction of being the nation’s first third party, and amongst the most successful. In the 1832 election, the William Wirt won the state of Vermont and received an impressive 100,000 votes for that time, and thus was the first candidate of an organized third party to carry a state. 9 James B. Weaver Populist party 1892 (8.5% votes) James B.

Weaver, a representative from Iowa, was an independent thinker and third party activist who has the distinction of being the only third party presidential candidate to gain Electoral College votes from Oregon. In 1892, James B. Weaver was the Presidential candidate of the Populist People’s Party. As a presidential candidate he stumped the entire country, calling for a “free and fair ballot” in the South and civil rights for black Americans. He won 22 electoral votes, polling roughly a million and a half votes, 9% of the total cast. He won all of the electoral votes of Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, and Nevada and also received some electoral votes from North Dakota and Oregon. His popular vote percentage makes him earns Weaver a spot among the most successful third-party presidential bids in US history. 8 Martin Van Buren Free soil party 1848 (10.1% votes) A third party, the Free Soil Party, was organized for the 1848 election to oppose further expansion of slavery into the western territories. The party was led by Salmon P. Chase and John Parker Hale.

Former President Martin Van Buren defeated Hale by a 154-129 delegate count to capture the Free Soil nomination. Unlike many other politicians at the time, there was no ambiguity in Van Buren’s position on the abolition of slavery during his political campaign in the 1848 election. Van Buren considered slavery morally wrong but sanctioned by the Constitution, and he advocated a constitutional amendment. Ultimately Van Buren obtained nearly 300,000 popular votes for a 10.1% percent of the electorate support. Van Buren Free-Soil Party’s “spoiler” effect in this election put Zachary Taylor into office in a narrowly-contested election. 7 John Bell Constitutional Union Party 1860 (12.6% vote) Annoyed by the continuous sectional strife in the Senate, Tennessee congressman John Bell had pondered forming a third party to attract moderates from both the North and South throughout the 1850s. In May 1860, disgruntled ex-Whigs and disenchanted moderates from across the country convened in Baltimore, where they formed the Constitutional Union Party, amongst them was the enthusiastic John Bell.

The party’s platform however was very broad, and made no of the mention of slavery (at the time a major political issue). On May 10, Bell and was declared the Constitutional Union’s candidate. While Bell had supporters throughout the Northern states and the Border States, most of his Northern allies had thrown their support behind Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln or Democratic candidate Stephen A. Douglas. Bell however managed to obtain a surprising near 13% of the total popular votes; 39% of Southern popular votes, and won 39 electoral votes. 6 George Wallace American Independent Party 1968 (13.5% vote) Wallace was the 45th governor of Alabama, having served four nonconsecutive terms. After four runs for U.S. president (three as a Democrat and one on the American Independent Party ticket), he earned the title “the most influential loser” in 20th-century U.S. politics, according to several biographers. Wallace ran for President in the 1968 election as the American Independent Party candidate. Wallace’s pro-segregation policies had been rejected by the mainstream of the Democratic Party.

The impact of the Wallace campaign was substantial, winning the electoral votes of several states in the Deep South. Although Wallace did not expect to win the election, his strategy was to prevent either major party candidate from winning a preliminary majority in the Electoral College, which would then give him bargaining power to determine the winner. George Wallace obtained 9,901,118 popular votes for 13.5% in the race and 45 electoral votes. He was ultimately successful in preventing the other candidates from obtaining over 50% of the votes. 5 Robert La Follette Progressive Party 1924 (16.6% vote) In 1924, the Federated Farmer-Labor Party (FF-LP), a left wing social justice party, sought to nominate Wisconsin’s District Attorney La Follette as its candidate. The FF-LP sought to unite all the many tiny progressive parties into a single national Labor Party. However, after a bitter convention in 1923, the Communist-controlled Workers Party gained control of the national organization’s structure. Just prior to its 1924 convention in St. Paul, La Follette denounced the Communists and refused to be considered for the FF-LP endorsement.

Instead, La Follette formed an independent Progressive Party and accepted its nomination in Cleveland. The American Federation of Labor, the Socialist Party of America, the Conference for Progressive Political Action and most of the former supporters of the FF-LP along with various former “Bull Moose” Progressives and midwestern Progressive movement activists then joined La Follette and supported the Progressive Party. La Follette’s platform called for socialism and policies to nationalize most privately owned corporations providing common services. He came in third behind incumbent President Calvin Coolidge and Democratic candidate John W. Davis. La Follette won 17% of the popular vote, carried Wisconsin (winning its 13 electoral votes) and polled second in 11 Western states. His base consisted of German Americans, railroad workers, the AFL labor unions, the Non-Partisan League, the Socialist Party, Western farmers, and many of the Progressives who had supported Roosevelt in 1912. He is as of today the third party candidate that has most successfully united many minority political parties and coalitions into a single voting alliance. 4 John C. Breckenridge Southern Democratic Party 1860.

(18.2% votes) In 1890 the Democratic Party witnessed a new faction split, the Southern Democrats, These were members of the U.S. Democratic Party who resided in the American South, and were dissatisfied with the Democrat’s lack of leadership prior to the civil war. This newly formed party was the definitive pro-slavery wing of the democrat ideology, opposed to both the anti-slavery Republicans (GOP) and the more liberal Northern Democrats. John C. Breckenridge, a young U.S. Senator from Kentucky and the14th Vice President of the United States , was the southern democratic party’s candidate. He is perhaps the most important spoiler in US history, after carrying 11 states and 72 electoral votes; he tipped the balance in favor of Abraham Lincoln, which forever changed the course of American Politics. 3 H. Ross Perot Independent 1992.

(18.9% vote) Perot, at the time a very successful Texan entrepreneur, appeared on February 20, 1992 on CNN’s Larry King Live and announced his intention to run as an independent candidate in the 1992 election if his supporters could get his name on the ballot in all fifty states. With such declared policies as balancing the federal budget, a firm pro-choice stance on abortion, expansion of the war on drugs and ending outsourcing of jobs, he became a potential candidate and soon polled roughly even with the two major party candidates. Perot’s candidacy received increasing media by polling as high as 39% by June 1992. Perot severely damaged his credibility by dropping out of the presidential contest in July and remaining out of the race for several weeks before re-entering. He compounded this damage by eventually claiming, without evidence, that his withdrawal was due to Republican operatives attempting to disrupt his daughter’s wedding. In the end, he received 18.9% of the popular vote, approximately 19,741,065 votes (but no electoral college votes), making him the second most successful third-party presidential candidate in terms of the popular vote.

2 Millard Fillmore Know Nothing Party 1856 (22% vote) He ran in the election of 1856 as the Know-Nothing party’s presidential candidate. This Party was known for its radical xenophobic and anti-catholic views that often translated into violent bouts targeting minorities. Millard Fillmore attempted through this Party to win a nonconsecutive second term as President (a feat accomplished only once in American politics, by Grover Cleveland). His running mate was Andrew Jackson Donelson, nephew of former president Andrew Jackson. Fillmore and Donelson finished third in the general election, carrying only the state of Maryland and its eight electoral votes; but he won 22% of the popular vote, one of the best showings ever by a Presidential third-party candidate. And a testimony to this decade’s intolerant nature. 1 Teddy Roosevelt Bull-Moose Party 1912 (27.4% vote) Roosevelt left office in 1909. He had selected William Taft, his Secretary of War to succeed him as President, and Taft easily won the 1908 presidential election. Roosevelt became disappointed by Taft’s increasingly conservative policies.

Taft alienated Roosevelt when he used the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to break up U.S. Steel. By 1912, the two were openly hostile, and Roosevelt decided to seek the presidency. Roosevelt far outpolled Taft in the primaries. But Taft controlled the party organization and the convention, which renominated him in June. Before the final vote, Roosevelt had said he would accept nomination from a new “honestly elected” convention and so the Progressive Party (better known as the Bull-Moose party) was born. Roosevelt ran a vigorous campaign, but the campaign was short of money, as the business interests which had supported Roosevelt in 1904 either backed the other candidates or stayed neutral. Roosevelt was also handicapped by the fact that he had already served nearly two full terms as President, and thus was challenging the unwritten “no third term” rule. In the end Roosevelt fell far short of winning. He drew 4.1 million votes—27%, well behind Wilson’s 42% but ahead of Taft’s 23%. This marked the first time a third party candidate did better than a 3rd place in a general election. More Great Lists

Question: Who finished 3rd in the 1992 Presidential election?
Answer: Ross Perot