Not all messages are displayed:
show all messages (274 of them)
there's a lot of debate over how much perot affected the outcome of that election but i think it's fair to assume bush wouldn't have done as badly (at least) without him in the race.
I think there's consensus, though, that Clinton would have won with or without Perot. If you throw Perot's 19,743,821 votes back into the mix, Clinton would have only needed a little over 35% of them to win the popular vote.
Which doesn't, admittedly, take into account: 1) the electoral college, 2) how Perot affected the debates (quite a lot, at least one of them), and 3) the fact that Perot hated Bush and zeroed in on him the whole way.
But I assume Clinton would have won a plurality of Perot's votes--who were mostly, as I remember it, people angry at Bush for breaking his tax pledge and various other things--making at least the first point moot.
― clemenza, Monday, 8 July 2019 19:28 (four years ago) link
For whatever it's worth, in 1996 when Perot's votes dropped from 19% to 8% - the Republican vote went from 37% to 40%, Clinton's vote went from 43% to 49%.
― Screamin' Jay Gould (The Yellow Kid), Monday, 8 July 2019 19:47 (four years ago) link
six months pass...
A friend and I were talking about the convention yesterday: going to take a wild guess that WJC is kept well hidden from view this year.
― clemenza, Thursday, 23 January 2020 02:43 (four years ago) link
The woman from the bombastic Blood, Sweat & Tears song? I don't know.
― clemenza, Thursday, 23 January 2020 03:38 (four years ago) link
three months pass...