kansas 1992
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 12:02:48 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  kansas 1992
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: kansas 1992  (Read 2541 times)
WalterMitty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,572


Political Matrix
E: 1.68, S: -2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: March 22, 2006, 07:57:23 PM »

has anyone noticed how close it was?

of course, it was the perot factor.

but i still find it interesting.
Logged
phk
phknrocket1k
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,906


Political Matrix
E: 1.42, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: March 22, 2006, 07:59:26 PM »

has anyone noticed how close it was?

of course, it was the perot factor.

but i still find it interesting.

I was first grader in Sedgewick County which is the home of Wichita, KS at the time of the election.

Basically the mock election was...
- If you were white, and your dad had a job, you supported Bush.
- If you were white, and your dad didn't have a job, you supported Perot.
- If you were black or well phknrocket1k, you supported Clinton regardless of whether or not your dad had a job.

Perot was very much in tune with Kansas on economic matters which is why he did so well there.
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: March 22, 2006, 07:59:44 PM »

Wyoming was just as close.
Logged
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,388
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: March 22, 2006, 09:07:25 PM »


And Texas (Bush's home state) was even closer.
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: March 22, 2006, 10:14:06 PM »


I think that those results were more predictable sinc Texas was also Perot's home state and the chances of a Democratic win, in general, are better in Texas than Wyoming.
Logged
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,388
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: March 22, 2006, 10:29:42 PM »


I think that those results were more predictable sinc Texas was also Perot's home state and the chances of a Democratic win, in general, are better in Texas than Wyoming.

True, but it's still interesting how weird Perot made the results.

Although, after looking at 1996, it may be the case that Texas wasn't one of those weird states, as it was still within 5% in 1996.
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: March 22, 2006, 10:30:44 PM »

True, but it's still interesting how weird Perot made the results.

Oh, I totally agree.
Logged
Mr. Paleoconservative
Reagan Raider
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 560
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.29, S: 5.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: March 22, 2006, 11:15:35 PM »

1992 was one of the truly "special" presidential elections of the 20th century, and it is a shame that, at least in contemporary history, it seems to have the reputation of a lackluster election in the vein of 1996.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: March 24, 2006, 05:58:43 AM »

In 1992 the country was still dealigned in a way that made it possible for both parties to win most states (not the case today).
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 0.04 seconds with 11 queries.