States that Reps and Dems have won since 1988, but how can the parties improve?

[MissCatholic]

Democrats since 1988 = 388 votes



States Republicans have won since 1988 = 290 votes

[True Democrat]

You forgot Georgia in 1992.

[skybridge]

Democrats since 1988 = 388 votes



States Republicans have won since 1988 = 290 votes

Interesting maps. The GOP could turn more liberal to try to win some of the Dems' states.

[big bad fab]

It's very biased, since Perot helped put Rep states in the "wrong" column (Montana, Georgia, Louisiana, even Kentucky).

But that's true McCain/Romney will win PA, Michigan and Maye Wisconsin in 2008....

[MaC]

It's very biased, since Perot helped put Rep states in the "wrong" column (Montana, Georgia, Louisiana, even Kentucky).

But that's true McCain/Romney will win PA, Michigan and Maye Wisconsin in 2008....

Yeah, I doubt Clinton would be able to win Montana without Perot.  You do make a point, but you fail to acknowledge that the Dems won '92 and '96 because of a third party.

[Smash255]

It's very biased, since Perot helped put Rep states in the "wrong" column (Montana, Georgia, Louisiana, even Kentucky).

But that's true McCain/Romney will win PA, Michigan and Maye Wisconsin in 2008....

Yeah, I doubt Clinton would be able to win Montana without Perot.  You do make a point, but you fail to acknowledge that the Dems won '92 and '96 because of a third party.

Did perot help the Dems win some states??  Yes.  the election as a whole??  no way

[True Democrat]

It's very biased, since Perot helped put Rep states in the "wrong" column (Montana, Georgia, Louisiana, even Kentucky).

But that's true McCain/Romney will win PA, Michigan and Maye Wisconsin in 2008....

Yeah, I doubt Clinton would be able to win Montana without Perot.  You do make a point, but you fail to acknowledge that the Dems won '92 and '96 because of a third party.

1992, yes, Bush probably woud have won.

1996, Clinton definately would have won.  It was only close because of low turnout.

[© tweed]

1992, yes, Bush probably woud have won.

Please stop saying this, everybody.  I get tired of disproving this theory dozens of times a year.

[MissCatholic]

clinton would have won in 1992. the evidence is overwhelming. the bush snr presidency was a failure

[MODU]

It's very biased, since Perot helped put Rep states in the "wrong" column (Montana, Georgia, Louisiana, even Kentucky).

But that's true McCain/Romney will win PA, Michigan and Maye Wisconsin in 2008....

Yeah, I doubt Clinton would be able to win Montana without Perot.  You do make a point, but you fail to acknowledge that the Dems won '92 and '96 because of a third party.

Did perot help the Dems win some states??  Yes.  the election as a whole??  no way

In 1992, he probably did, but not in 1996.

[jimrtex]

1992, yes, Bush probably woud have won.

Please stop saying this, everybody.  I get tired of disproving this theory dozens of times a year.

How can you tell?

The question is not what would voters had done had they got to the polling booth and discovered that Perot was not on the ballot, but what would have happened had he not run at all.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Best link for debunking that there is: http://www.leinsdorf.com/perot.htm

[TheresNoMoney]

Perot took away more votes from Clinton than he did from Bush. The previous article clearly shows that.

One of Perot's big platforms was opposing NAFTA while Bush and Clinton both supported it. This alone got him millions of Democratic votes.

[© tweed]

Best link for debunking that there is: http://www.leinsdorf.com/perot.htm

Also, the Gallup polling graphic helps too, it shows Clinton with a lead throughout most of the campaign (except for right after the GOP convention) but I lost the link to it.

[ATFFL]

Best link for debunking that there is: http://www.leinsdorf.com/perot.htm

Yes, if Perot had suddenly not been on the ballot in 1992, bush would still have been toast.

Now what happens if he does not enter the race in the first place?  What if he says in January, "Run for President?  I couldn't handle the salary cut."  What if there is no speculation during the democratic primaries resulting in a lot more media coverage of Clinton and Brown?  A lot more changes than just the names on the ballots.

No study can cover that.  At that point we enter the realm of speculation.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Your maps are a little distorted by the time frame selected.

Bush (pere) in 1992 and Dole in 1996 had both managed to anger two key Republican constituencies: (a) those who oppose tax increases and (b) those who support the right to keep and bear arms.

As such, both candidates performed very poorly.

In contrast, the 2000 and 2004 elections were relatively close.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

I believe the Democrats are in a much better position strategically, they just haven't utilized it.  A few tweaks in their message and they easily win (picking up states like FL, OH, MO) without abandoning much, the liberals are too smart to run to Nader over somehthing like, less strict gun laws that could bring in a lot of votes.  However, the Republican vote is so imbeded in the right-wing religious nutjob part of the country, there are a good 230 EVs the GOP can forget about. 

[12th Doctor]

Best link for debunking that there is: http://www.leinsdorf.com/perot.htm

Yes, if Perot had suddenly not been on the ballot in 1992, bush would still have been toast.

Now what happens if he does not enter the race in the first place?  What if he says in January, "Run for President?  I couldn't handle the salary cut."  What if there is no speculation during the democratic primaries resulting in a lot more media coverage of Clinton and Brown?  A lot more changes than just the names on the ballots.

No study can cover that.  At that point we enter the realm of speculation.

For that matter, what about the effect of a sitting President taking twice as many hits from two opponents?  Or the fact that millions voted Perot because of the deficit?

[12th Doctor]

Here is a better way to look at this:

States probably not in danger of being lost by a credible GOP candidate for the next two elections



202 EV's

States probably not in danger of being lost by a credible Dem. candidate for the next two elections



180 EV's

Note the difference?

[© tweed]

Also, if Bayh is the Dem nominee, Indiana becomes grey certainly.  But for the intent of Soulty's map I understand why it's blue.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Here is a better way to look at this:

States probably not in danger of being lost by a credible GOP candidate for the next two elections



202 EV's

States probably not in danger of being lost by a credible Dem. candidate for the next two elections



180 EV's

Note the difference?

New Jersey sjould probably be grey.

Bush maxed out here and couldn't hit 47%, stop being so delusional. 

[AkSaber]

Your maps are a little distorted by the time frame selected.

Bush (pere) in 1992 and Dole in 1996 had both managed to anger two key Republican constituencies: (a) those who oppose tax increases and (b) those who support the right to keep and bear arms.

As such, both candidates performed very poorly.

In contrast, the 2000 and 2004 elections were relatively close.

If you don't mind my asking, but what happened with that?