Montana in 08

[minionofmidas]

Clinton did win the state in 92, and unlike Georgia the state has not changed much since. It could happen again... but if it does, it will not matter.

[minionofmidas]

Clinton did win the state in 92, and unlike Georgia the state has not changed much since. It could happen again... but if it does, it will not matter.

Kerry got a higher vote percentage in '04 than Clinton did in '92.  The only reason Clinton won Montana is because Perot took in 26% of the vote.

That only makes sense if you add something about Perot taking a higher percentage than elsewhere of his votes from Bush in Montana.

[minionofmidas]

Clinton did win the state in 92, and unlike Georgia the state has not changed much since. It could happen again... but if it does, it will not matter.

Kerry got a higher vote percentage in '04 than Clinton did in '92.  The only reason Clinton won Montana is because Perot took in 26% of the vote.

That only makes sense if you add something about Perot taking a higher percentage than elsewhere of his votes from Bush in Montana.

Sorry, I should have qualified that with the fact that Montana was Perot's 5th best state as far as percentage of vote goes.

1. Maine- 30.44%
2. Alaska- 28.43%
3. Idaho- 27.05%
4. Kansas- 26.99%
5. Montana- 26.12%
 

I know that (well not the exact rank, but thereabouts). That wasn't my point though. Perot in 92 (not in 96) took about equal amounts of votes from Clinton and Bush, nationally. If these shares were the same in every state, then Perot threw no states to Clinton (or to Bush). Obviously these shares are going to differ by state though... the question is, in which way?