Skip to main content

View Diary: Popular vote landslide (298 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  As much as I dislike the Electoral College (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Stranded Wind

    One of the arguments I have heard for it is that it means the winner always has at least 50%, making the win seem more legitimate. I don't think that makes it worth it, but it is an interesting point.

    •  That's not true, though (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Karl Rover, Dragon5616

      Clinton won the EV without getting 50%, because Perot took so many votes without winning a state.

      •  that's what I mean (0+ / 0-)

        no-one got 50% of the popular vote, but the EC was a more they 300 vote win, so Clinton had more then 50% of the vote.  In order to get elected president, you have to get more the 50% of the Electoral College votes (assuming it doesn't get thrown to the house of representatives.)

      •  remember that Perot only denied Clinton 50% (0+ / 0-)

        as shown by the exit polls in 1992. For Bush to have won 1992, he'd need to have won every state Clinton won by less than 5. in a year where his approval wasn't even 40% for much of the year, that wasn't happening. perot voters wanted change too, as Perot was pro-choice, pro-gay rights, and against NAFTA. The myth of him as a spoiler is just that: a myth. Hell, if Perot had not come back, being that polling from July-October looked consistently like this, Clinton would have won in a big landslide.

        •  The exit polls from '92 were a bit off (0+ / 0-)

          I remember there being talk of TX being too close to call after the early exists came out.  I would not rely too much on the exits for your evidence of what Perot voters would have done.  I suspect many of them would not have even bothered to vote that year, but once at the polling booth and asked a question ventured to guess who they would have voted for.

          •  what other way to measure? (0+ / 0-)

            being that there is no other real way to even attempt to guage where they would have gone in his absence. Bush won Texas anyway, and while Perot took more from Bush in Texas and sparse red states, he was taking more from Clinton in Massachusetts, New York, California, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, blue states very unhappy with Bush that year, all solidly Democratic states now. Also, even in medium sized states, he was ahead by enough that Bush was not gonna catch up to him. Tho I was using national polls, and the election was wide enough that a popular vote loser winning was zero likely. Also, Clinton was ahead by so much in the popular vote that for Bush to win the election, assuming all Perot voters voted in his absence, he'd need to win them 66-33 minimum. In a change election where Bush had approvals of 37, 38, and Perot was closer to Clinton on the issues, that was never happening. And if Perot voters would have stayed home that year as you said, which was very likely, better for Clinton. The denominator of total votes goes down, his percentage goes up.

            •  deaniac20 you sound more like a Clintoniac92 (0+ / 0-)

              What is with your obsession with trying to get Clinton over 50% when in fact he did NOT receive over 50% of the vote?  You can spin all the hypos you want but the fact of the matter remains that in real life Clinton did NOT get over 50% of the vote.

              •  because I'm sick of it being used (0+ / 0-)

                as an epithet to act is af Clinton's victories meant nothing when they actually did. I'm sick of it being used to call his victories fake when they were real. Its an insult to a great American, and the truth.

      •  why not use Bush as an example (0+ / 0-)

        instead of Clinton, who got the most votes twice. Bush didn't get the most votes twice. Remember 2000? Also, exit polls show Clinton clearly woulda won over 50% in the pop vote if Perot were not there.

    •  You simply don't understand (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      deaniac20, scooter86

      which is hindering your efforts to come to the right conclusion.

      The EC makes it possible for the winner to be the person who doesn't get the most votes.

      It needs to be scrapped.

      Start spreading this meme: The "Weekend at Bernie's" Economy!

      by Paul Goodman on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 07:02:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site