ProSense
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-02-08 05:26 PM
Original message |
Obama on track to be first Dem to win with more than 50% since 1976 |
ProSense
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-02-08 05:46 PM
Response to Original message |
liberalpragmatist
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-02-08 05:50 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Perot kept him from claiming a handsome popular vote majority in both '92 and '96. Certainly in '96, Clinton's 49% would almost certainly have been at least a few points higher without Perot in the race (even if you assume that 2/3 or Perot '96 voters would have voted for Dole).
Hell, even WITH Perot, Clinton would probably have gotten more than 50% had turnout been decent -- instead, turnout in '96 was dreadful.
|
ProSense
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-02-08 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
3. I think Perot drew from both candidates, |
|
but more from Republicans.
|
liberalpragmatist
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-02-08 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
4. Polls in '92 had him drawing evenly from both |
|
Exit polls showed Clinton would only have lost Ohio without Perot in the race. And when Perot sat out the race between July and Oct '92, polls had Clinton CRUSHING Bush.
Without Perot, Clinton would probably have won by a similar margin as that by which Obama looks set to beat McCain. It would have been something like 52-46 for Clinton.
|
book_worm
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-02-08 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
5. In '96 without Perot he certainly would have won more than 50% |
ProSense
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-02-08 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 07:46 AM
Response to Original message |