Comment: Lessons from Ross Perot

(See in situ)

Lessons from Ross Perot

I got to thinking about Ross Perot. The last time there were 3 candidates in a presidential debate was 1992: Bush, Clinton, and Perot.

In 1992, Perot was LEADING in the polls with nearly 40% of the vote in June. But in July, there was all sorts of turmoil within his campaign. Someone within his campaign was accused of being a CIA Bush-backed plant, intent on sabbotaging the Perot campaign from the inside (sound familiar???).

That same month, Perot -- leading in the national polls, mind you -- DROPPED OUT of the race. He first said the Republicans (aka Bush) were threatening his daughter (sound familiar ???).

Problem was, he didn't have any hard proof to offer. He just dropped out and a lot of people thought he was nutty.

And then ... he dropped back in. He re-announced he would run and he used his own money to run TV ads (infomercials). These were VERY popular.

By October, he was back up enough in the polls to get in the debates. With just a month to go before election, with being in the debates and running his own informercials on TV, he went from under 10% in the polls in early October to getting 19% of the vote on election day.

If he had run a real campaign, and not dropped out, he could have won.

Not that that would have been a GOOD thing. He WAS nuts, as far has some of his ideas were concerned (such as random house-to-house searches "just to see" if anybody has drugs).

But the POINT here is ...

(1) Media attention, in whatever form -- as long as it is not negative bashing (like Ron Paul gets) -- is a KEY to winning elections.
(2) Money is the other key.

There are A LOT of people who are fed up with the corrupt political system -- have been for years. But they continue to vote for Dumb and Dumber (or Corrupt and Corrupter) because they buy into the bull that there are only two choices, and they NEVER see any other choices in the media.

This applies to any political office, not just the president. Actually, I think the state offices might be a better route to go -- focus on candidates who will enforce the 10th Amendment from the state legislatures.

But when it comes to presidential elections, are there any wealthy libertarians out there who might be interested in running for office?

Romney made it as far as he did for one reason and one reason only: he has money, and he used it to fund PACs and other organizations to buy good media backing.

Just some random thoughts on a crazy night ...