colm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 69
|
Post by colm on Aug 24, 2018 19:07:53 GMT
It would take Sanders running as an independent and being for the Democrats what Perot was for the Republicans in 1992 for the GOP to win Colorado or Virginia imo (even thigh both states voted for Dole in 1996). Contrary to popular myth, Perot actually took votes approximately equally from both sides. While the exit polls suggest that, it is clear that without Perot acting as spoiler that Clinton would have won 3 or 4 less states each time. Clinton does not win Montana in'92 or Arizona in '96 without Perot. Also it is important to note that Perot was able to weaken Bush with his attacks which helped Clinton. Clinton would not have been able to attack Bush in the same way as Perot was weakening Bush from a conservative,libertarian view point. |
|
colm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 69
|
Post by colm on Aug 24, 2018 19:11:34 GMT
On an american politics forum that I use it was suggested that a Republican getting about 58% nationally would be winning 40-42 states while a dem would be winning about 34 states. I think 40 states look like a mountain for the dems given the current coalitions of the 2 parties.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Aug 24, 2018 21:18:05 GMT
Contrary to popular myth, Perot actually took votes approximately equally from both sides. While the exit polls suggest that, it is clear that without Perot acting as spoiler that Clinton would have won 3 or 4 less states each time. Clinton does not win Montana in'92 or Arizona in '96 without Perot. What's your evidence that Perot flipped those states? True. And it's the most plausible argument for Perot being a significant cause of Bush's defeat. Sadly, it's almost impossible to prove whether this had a significant effect or not. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2018 21:27:17 GMT
Contrary to popular myth, Perot actually took votes approximately equally from both sides. While the exit polls suggest that, it is clear that without Perot acting as spoiler that Clinton would have won 3 or 4 less states each time. Clinton does not win Montana in'92 or Arizona in '96 without Perot. Also it is important to note that Perot was able to weaken Bush with his attacks which helped Clinton. Clinton would not have been able to attack Bush in the same way as Perot was weakening Bush from a conservative,libertarian view point. Which 4 in 1992? Montana, Georgia, and 2 others? |
|
colm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 69
|
Post by colm on Aug 24, 2018 23:31:01 GMT
Nevada and maybe Kentucky.
|
|
