1992 election with no Ross Perot drop-out
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 03:34:14 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Election What-ifs?
  Past Election What-ifs (US) (Moderator: Dereich)
  1992 election with no Ross Perot drop-out
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: 1992 election with no Ross Perot drop-out  (Read 13485 times)
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,986
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: May 14, 2010, 10:53:50 PM »

Ross Perot does not drop out of the race in July. Everything else stays the same. How would this election turn out? You pick the VPs. Discuss, with maps. List both the PV and the EV.
Logged
Speaker Perez
Alex A. Perez
Rookie
**
Posts: 49
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: May 15, 2010, 12:31:35 AM »

Perot wins. polls showed him even or ahead of both clinton and bush.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,986
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: May 15, 2010, 12:33:26 AM »

Perot wins. polls showed him even or ahead of both clinton and bush.

The polls could have changed, though.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,615
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: May 15, 2010, 11:59:15 AM »

he might have
Logged
justW353
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,693
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -3.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: May 16, 2010, 05:36:11 PM »


487 - 46 - 5
Logged
cpeeks
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 699
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: May 16, 2010, 05:46:44 PM »

It becomes a two man race between Clinton and Perot, Bush was so unpopular at that time, his approval ratings were in the low 30's, he would have turned into another Taft like in 1912. America was ready for change.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,615
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: May 16, 2010, 05:57:15 PM »

I think Perot could've won but it would have been very interesting. I still want to see who most Perot voters would've picked as a second choice. Bush was unpopular but Clinton wasn't trusted.
Logged
cpeeks
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 699
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: May 17, 2010, 02:44:02 PM »

Lol there choice was Clinton when Perot came back in the race clinton was up 20 % his number dropped to 43%, bushs didnt change and perot rose from 7 to 19%, and ya i dont think perot would have won but he could have thrown it into the house.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,615
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: May 17, 2010, 03:38:10 PM »

If he wasn't in the race before he reentered, how did he go from 7 to 19?
Logged
cpeeks
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 699
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: May 17, 2010, 05:00:22 PM »

He still had some loyal supporters the day he reentered the race the polls stood at Clinton 55% Bush 35% and Perot 7%, I remember that day vividly.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,615
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: May 20, 2010, 06:05:07 PM »

I believe you. So you're saying the media polled as if Perot were in the race anyways?
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,986
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: May 20, 2010, 06:06:50 PM »

If he wasn't in the race before he reentered, how did he go from 7 to 19?

Immediately after he reenetered the race, he was polling at 7%. After the debates, he was polling at about 20% and won 19% of the EV on Election Day.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,615
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: May 20, 2010, 06:08:08 PM »

you mean PV
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,986
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: May 20, 2010, 06:09:04 PM »


Yes. Polls essentially show what % of the popular vote a candidate is likely to win if the election was held today.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,615
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: May 20, 2010, 06:23:34 PM »


Yes. Polls essentially show what % of the popular vote a candidate is likely to win if the election was held today.

I know my question was did the media put Perot in the race even after he dropped out?
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,986
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: May 20, 2010, 06:26:56 PM »


Yes. Polls essentially show what % of the popular vote a candidate is likely to win if the election was held today.

I know my question was did the media put Perot in the race even after he dropped out?

No. They didn't.
Logged
cpeeks
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 699
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: May 20, 2010, 07:00:42 PM »

Perot was already on the ballot on all 50 states, so no the media didnt put him in, he already was in.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,615
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: May 20, 2010, 11:52:03 PM »

Perot was already on the ballot on all 50 states, so no the media didnt put him in, he already was in.

oh ok so he was on the ballots but not campaigning?
Logged
cpeeks
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 699
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: May 23, 2010, 11:12:17 PM »

Correct he quit campaigning in july and started back in october.
Logged
yougo1000
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,127
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: May 24, 2010, 08:28:36 AM »



Perot takes it to House. It just matters where he campaigned.
Logged
Mr. Smith
MormDem
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 33,072
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: December 16, 2014, 01:34:13 PM »



Something like this, Perot probably would've given Texas to Clinton but taken away votes in Illinois where HW's "elitism" would help him, after all he beat Dukakis there.

Logged
President Johnson
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,576
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -4.70


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: December 18, 2014, 02:23:21 PM »


Probably more this one. Reminds me a bit of 1912.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,663
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: December 26, 2014, 09:51:09 PM »

Perot was running into enough trouble anyways that he wouldn't come close to winning, though he would be a more plausible candidate in the minds of voters.  Clinton benefited from Perot's time not running by having the spotlight as the anti-incumbent candidate, so Perot's extra votes come a little more from Clinton here than from Bush.



Clinton/Gore     40.2%  363
Bush/Quayle     35.3%  172
Perot/Stockdale 24.1%     3
others                  .5%
Logged
Nichlemn
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,920


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: January 02, 2015, 05:31:42 AM »

I doubt it makes much of a difference. Just because he did well in early polls but did worse when he came back doesn't mean it was his dropping out and/or subsequent absence which cost all that support. Most likely (as is the case with many third party candidates), much of his early support was soft and liable to "come home" to the major candidates as time wore on. Maybe he improves by 5% or so, possibly winning Maine but no other states. It would take some major shake-ups to the campaign for him to throw the election into the House, let alone win.
Logged
HankW501
Rookie
**
Posts: 62
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: February 01, 2015, 03:14:13 PM »

One thing that makes this election unique among US presidential elections is that the only places where an absolute majority of the voters voted in favor of the same ticket were D.C., which always votes very strongly Democratic, and Arkansas, Bill Clinton's home state.  So if the appointment of a slate of electors were contingent on a majority of popular votes rather than simply a plurality, Clinton/Gore would have had only nine votes, but they would have been the only ticket with any votes, and 49 states would require runoff elections.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« 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 0.039 seconds with 12 queries.