In the 1992 election, Ross Perot’s run for the presidency can be seen as?
There are many possible interpretations of Ross Perot's 1992 run for the presidency. Some prominent ones include:
1) It is proof that the voters can become concerned about an issue (even a relatively non-sexy issue) if a candidate talks about the issue enough. Perot focused heavily on the issue of the budget deficit and his strong showing can be seen as proof that this focus got people to care about the issue.
2) It is proof that 3rd party candidates can not win elections but that they can influence the political discourse in the country. Perot's emphasis on the budget deficit can be seen as influencing public opinion and forcing the major party candidates to talk more about the issue. (The link below shows this interpretation.)
There are, of course, other interpretations, but these are two of the most important and widely-believed views.
His run for the Presidency, garnering 19% of the popular vote and most likely handing Bill Clinton the election (he drained many votes away from George H. W. Bush, even in his native Texas), also represented America's biggest turnout for a third party in decades.
This can be interpreted to mean that mainstream voters were disgusted and/or disappointed with both the Republican and Democratic parties, and were willing to look at alternatives. He also demonstrated a different kind of campaign, with his half hour blocks of TV time, and his folksy answers to complex questions. George W. Bush in 2000 picked up on some of Perot's strategies and used them to his own benefit.
The run for the presidency in 1992 by Ross Perot can be seen as proof that money is the most important thing in any election in the United States. Ross Perot used his huge money supply to buy large amounts of televison advertising to talk to the American people about the issues. Sure, the issues he was talking about did spark interest in the people but he would never have had the opportunity without his money. The campaign also showed how the American public had grown very weary of the politics of Washington D.C.