States Clinton would have lost in 92 without Perot on ballot (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 27, 2024, 02:01:48 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  States Clinton would have lost in 92 without Perot on ballot (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: States Clinton would have lost in 92 without Perot on ballot  (Read 797 times)
One Term Floridian
swamiG
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,042


Political Matrix
E: -2.06, S: 3.13

« 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]  
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 0.022 seconds with 12 queries.