TO FETCH A PAIL OF WATER

LOL - that's rich coming from Bill Clinton. GHWB wins a 2nd term if Ross Perot never enters the race...

(06-06-2018 12:05 PM)miko33 Wrote:  LOL - that's rich coming from Bill Clinton. GHWB wins a 2nd term if Ross Perot never enters the race...

myth

(06-06-2018 01:03 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(06-06-2018 12:05 PM)miko33 Wrote:  LOL - that's rich coming from Bill Clinton. GHWB wins a 2nd term if Ross Perot never enters the race...

myth

https://spectator.org/63680_joes-last-race-about-begin/

Linked is an article that echos your post above. However, I don't believe it's nearly this cut and dry. Perot's supporters were predominantly white, and he did best in states with the lower black populations. Also, his voters mistrusted the gov't. IMHO, that's in the GOP wheelhouse of voter make up. I know the popular consensus is that Perot evenly hurt both sides; however, when you dig into who supported him I believe he did hurt Bush more than Clinton.

The problem with polling in this case is that you cannot effectively reallocate voter support if Perot never runs. There are too many moving parts to accurately state that Perot's voters would have broken towards Bush or Clinton. However, given the makeup of the Perot supporter I believe it was a bigger blow to Bush. That's my opinion.

Not only do the exit polls say he effected both sides, Bush's approval rating was below 30% in the summer before and he never led a poll after March.

But you are correct, unless you can actually ask every Perot voter, it will never be concrete.

...they each had a quarter. Jill came down with 50 cents.

(06-06-2018 01:34 PM)miko33 Wrote:  I know the popular consensus is that Perot evenly hurt both sides; however, when you dig into who supported him I believe he did hurt Bush more than Clinton.

The problem with polling in this case is that you cannot effectively reallocate voter support if Perot never runs. There are too many moving parts to accurately state that Perot's voters would have broken towards Bush or Clinton. However, given the makeup of the Perot supporter I believe it was a bigger blow to Bush. That's my opinion.

I’d agree that Perot took more votes from Bush than from Clinton. But what was the ratio? How many of those votes (that were, in fact, cast for Perot) would’ve been cast (in Perot’s absence) for Bush, or for Clinton, or for neither of them? It’s an impossible question to answer, IMHO. But all I can say — having followed that campaign closely (almost obsessively) on a day-by-day basis — is my gut instinct is that if Perot had been, somehow, blotted out of the campaign, Clinton would still have won, albeit much more narrowly.

There were 11 states that Clinton won by <5.0%. I think 9 of them would’ve flipped back to Bush. Tennessee and Louisiana would’ve held — barely — for Clinton. Clinton would’ve (in that scenario) taken the Electoral College 283-255. Would’ve won the popular vote by ~49-48, with 3% for the Libertarians/Greens/etc.

Bill and Hill went up the Hill.
Each with a bucket of Uranium.
Both came back with millions of dollars (cause they sold it to Putin).

OHHHHHH!