States Clinton would have lost in 92 without Perot on ballot
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 04:04:51 AM
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)
  States Clinton would have lost in 92 without Perot on ballot
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: States Clinton would have lost in 92 without Perot on ballot  (Read 789 times)
Arbitrage1980
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 769
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: July 25, 2020, 09:10:13 PM »

Georgia
Montana
Colorado
Nevada
Logged
ReaganLimbaugh
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 327
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 16, 2020, 04:35:49 PM »

Georgia
Logged
Benjamin Frank
Frank
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,069


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 16, 2020, 05:04:43 PM »

Montana.  That's the only one.  Any others are based on the Republican lie that H W Bush would have been reelected had Perot not got back in the race.
Logged
Sumner 1868
tara gilesbie
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,053
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 16, 2020, 05:10:02 PM »

I know people think it "makes sense" that Clinton would lose Montana in 1992, but given Dukakis mustered 46% there and the Brady Bill/Assault Weapons Ban hadn't happened yet I think he would have just eked it out.
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,348


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: August 16, 2020, 09:56:00 PM »

Georgia , New Jersey, New Hampshire, Ohio , Colorado , Nevada , Montana
Logged
One Term Floridian
swamiG
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,042


Political Matrix
E: -2.06, S: 3.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: August 17, 2020, 09:59:18 AM »

MT definitely, maybe CO & NV and probably GA too due alone to the tiny margin for Clinton.

I am not of the thinking that Perot “cost” HW the election, but he clearly cost him at least a state or two.

Wild card: states that Clinton would have won in 92 without Perot on the ballot. Maybe NC & FL. I think outside of TX (for obvious reasons) Perot was actually taking quite a few votes from Clinton in his native south
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 0.026 seconds with 12 queries.