|
Title: 1992: States where Perot cost Bush the electoral votes Post by: Arbitrage1980 on September 20, 2016, 12:45:11 PM Clinton still would have won the election without Perot, but it would have been closer. On a state by state basis, it looks like there are a handful of states that Bush most likely would have won without Perot on the ballot.
Maine New Hampshire Georgia Montana Colorado Title: Re: 1992: States where Perot cost Bush the electoral votes Post by: tinman64 on September 20, 2016, 01:00:16 PM I'd throw Nevada and perhaps New Jersey in the list as well.
Title: Re: 1992: States where Perot cost Bush the electoral votes Post by: Mr.Phips on September 20, 2016, 01:05:33 PM Clinton still would have won the election without Perot, but it would have been closer. On a state by state basis, it looks like there are a handful of states that Bush most likely would have won without Perot on the ballot. Maine New Hampshire Georgia Montana Colorado I'd take Maine and Colorado off and add Ohio. Title: Re: 1992: States where Perot cost Bush the electoral votes Post by: OSR stands with Israel on September 20, 2016, 07:11:23 PM Ohio , New Jersey , Nevada should be added
Title: Re: 1992: States where Perot cost Bush the electoral votes Post by: Hilldog on September 25, 2016, 10:42:44 PM Maybe OH, GA, NH, MT, NV, and NJ, but there's no evidence of this. Exit polling among voters showed they split Perot's vote 30/30 and the rest would've stayed home.
Title: Re: 1992: States where Perot cost Bush the electoral votes Post by: Nym90 on September 26, 2016, 02:28:21 PM There's no evidence that Perot's voters would have disproportionately backed Bush over Clinton.
Title: Re: 1992: States where Perot cost Bush the electoral votes Post by: DS0816 on September 26, 2016, 03:48:45 PM At most … Montana.
Title: Re: 1992: States where Perot cost Bush the electoral votes Post by: Nym90 on September 28, 2016, 02:34:22 PM I ran a regression analysis a few months ago and there was actually a negative correlation between Perot's vote percentage and the Democratic "trend" (in Atlas terminology) in a state, while if Perot was taking votes disproportionately from Bush, you'd expect a positive correlation. Someone else did mention they had seen studies that there was a positive correlation at the county level, however.
So I would say the above, combined with exit polls showing that Perot's voters would've split evenly, makes it impossible to say with any certainty that Perot affected the outcome one way or the other. A more persuasive argument might be that Perot tended to attack Bush more than Clinton during the campaign and thus drove up Bush's negatives higher than they would have been if he hadn't run, though I'd be interested in seeing data on that as opposed to just anecdotes. Title: Re: 1992: States where Perot cost Bush the electoral votes Post by: Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez on October 01, 2016, 09:17:39 PM Clinton still would have won the election without Perot, but it would have been closer. On a state by state basis, it looks like there are a handful of states that Bush most likely would have won without Perot on the ballot. Maine New Hampshire Georgia Montana Colorado The states that cost Bush in 1992 probably went for Dole in 2000. Montana, Georgia, and Colorado are in this category as was Nevada back then. I would argue that Tennessee was in that category as well; it would have went for Gore in 2000 if it were not. Title: Re: 1992: States where Perot cost Bush the electoral votes Post by: Heisenberg on October 09, 2016, 02:59:28 PM There's no evidence that Perot's voters would have disproportionately backed Bush over Clinton. Clinton still would have won the election without Perot, but it would have been closer. Title: Re: 1992: States where Perot cost Bush the electoral votes Post by: I Will Not Be Wrong on October 09, 2016, 03:55:35 PM Bum is just talking $$$$ again. Bush would have clearly won.
Title: Re: 1992: States where Perot cost Bush the electoral votes Post by: Badger on October 10, 2016, 12:20:17 AM At most … Montana. Title: Re: 1992: States where Perot cost Bush the electoral votes Post by: Nym90 on October 10, 2016, 12:41:52 AM There's no evidence that Perot's voters would have disproportionately backed Bush over Clinton. Clinton still would have won the election without Perot, but it would have been closer. Ok, but I'm disputing it would have been closer overall. Sure, some states he took from one more than another. |