Active Users:342 Time:02/07/2025 04:44:00 AM
Not if you look at the Electoral College Tom Send a noteboard - 01/11/2013 05:59:03 PM

Perot support was stronger in states that went for Dole anyway. His supporters would not have swung enough states even if they all voted Dole (and a significant number said they would have voted Clinton or not voted):

"Reform Party nominee Ross Perot won approximately 8% of the popular vote. His vote total was less than half of his performance in 1992. The 1996 national exit poll showed that just as in 1992,[13] Reform Party nominee Ross Perot's supporters drew from Clinton and Dole equally.[14] In polls directed at Perot voters as to who would be a second choice, Clinton consistently held substantial leads.[15]" - wikipedia

EDIT: I cannot get more than 55 electoral votes that might have shifted, which still gives Clinton a victory.

Political correctness is the pettiest form of casuistry.

ἡ δὲ κἀκ τριῶν τρυπημάτων ἐργαζομένη ἐνεκάλει τῇ φύσει, δυσφορουμένη, ὅτι δὴ μὴ καὶ τοὺς τιτθοὺς αὐτῇ εὐρύτερον ἢ νῦν εἰσι τρυπώη, ὅπως καὶ ἄλλην ἐνταῦθα μίξιν ἐπιτεχνᾶσθαι δυνατὴ εἴη. – Procopius

Ummaka qinnassa nīk!

*MySmiley*
1996 Results
This message last edited by Tom on 01/11/2013 at 06:05:36 PM
Reply to message
The stage is set for a 3rd party presidential candidate..... - 31/10/2013 04:24:12 PM 579 Views
The problem with indie or 3rd party... - 31/10/2013 05:06:59 PM 333 Views
I'm not talking about a typical indy.....more like a Bloomberg with a billion to spend. - 31/10/2013 05:09:17 PM 284 Views
Hopefully having little in common with Bloomberg besides cash - 31/10/2013 05:29:19 PM 282 Views
As a humble mayor..... - 31/10/2013 05:37:16 PM 303 Views
I think he played a signifcant role in the 96 election as well - 01/11/2013 02:41:58 PM 278 Views
Not if you look at the Electoral College - 01/11/2013 05:59:03 PM 665 Views
Significant? Yeah but not enough to say he altered the outcome - 02/11/2013 01:41:15 AM 284 Views

Reply to Message