Something that annoys the hell out of me
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 08, 2024, 01:34:20 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  Something that annoys the hell out of me
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Something that annoys the hell out of me  (Read 1882 times)
Old Man Willow
ShadowOfTheWave
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,706
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: April 18, 2009, 02:54:25 PM »

Not just Republicans do this but Democrats a lot to, whenever the 'If Perot wasn't on the ballot' topic comes up people give Wisconsin to Bush because of the margin, not paying attention AT ALL to the percentages. Bush could not have won a Dukakis state!
Logged
SingingAnalyst
mathstatman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,637
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: May 05, 2015, 10:49:59 PM »

I agree, Bush would not have won WI. The only states that would have flipped without Perot I believe are NH, OH, MT, NV. Perot pulled slightly more votes from Bush but not much. Clinton still would have won the election and probably would have won a majority of the PV as well (same goes for 1996).
Logged
bobloblaw
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,018
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: May 06, 2015, 04:02:19 PM »

I agree, Bush would not have won WI. The only states that would have flipped without Perot I believe are NH, OH, MT, NV. Perot pulled slightly more votes from Bush but not much. Clinton still would have won the election and probably would have won a majority of the PV as well (same goes for 1996).

Wrong:
NJ, KY, CO, GA also would have flipped to Bush.

What people are forgetting is that the 1992 election was quite good for the GOP outside the Presidential race. It was the first presidential election where the winner lost seats in the House (GOP+9), since 1960, the GOP held even in the Senate and picked up state legislative races. Proof Perot took more form Bush than from Clinton.
Logged
Sumner 1868
tara gilesbie
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,095
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: May 06, 2015, 05:40:54 PM »

I agree, Bush would not have won WI. The only states that would have flipped without Perot I believe are NH, OH, MT, NV. Perot pulled slightly more votes from Bush but not much. Clinton still would have won the election and probably would have won a majority of the PV as well (same goes for 1996).

Wrong:
NJ, KY, CO, GA also would have flipped to Bush.

What people are forgetting is that the 1992 election was quite good for the GOP outside the Presidential race. It was the first presidential election where the winner lost seats in the House (GOP+9), since 1960, the GOP held even in the Senate and picked up state legislative races. Proof Perot took more form Bush than from Clinton.

Your conveniently forgetting all these gains were in the South and the Rockies.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.213 seconds with 12 queries.