Skip to main content

View Diary: A Conservative Radio Show announcer sees the light! (195 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I see your philosophical point (none)
    I'm simply seeing this as a divide and conquer election issue. Bush panders to these people for votes, then leaves them behind in the dust of the elections. This guy feels used. I don't agree with his beliefs about abortion, etc. I'm just saying take the common ground issues that are anti-neocon and trumpet those. A big hope of mine for the next election cycle is a split GOPish ticket. Would Clinton have won without Perot in the mix?

    If the U.S. goes too far right, they'll be nothing left.

    •  Here's an analysis of the Perot question (none)
      http://www.fairvote.org/plurality/perot.htm

      Perot's impact in particular states was clear - and almost certain to have been to the detriment of George Bush

      •  My analysis of Perot's impact in 1992 (none)
        Clinton won a clear majority in only three states - AR, MD, and NY - and DC, worth 52 electoral votes.

        Bush won a clear majority in eighteen states - AL, AK, AZ, FL, ID, IN, KS, MS, NE, NC, ND, OK, SC, SD, TX, UT, VA, WY - worth 168 electoral votes.

        Clinton carried the remaining twenty-nine states, but did not receive a majority of the vote.  To assess Perot's impact, I calculated the percentage of Perot's supporters that would have had to vote for Bush (assuming that they all voted for either Clinton or Bush) to swing the state for Bush.

        State - EV - Clinton margin - Perot index

        Illinois - 22 - 14.24 - 92.79
        West Virginia - 5 - 13.02 - 90.90
        Massachusetts - 12 - 18.52 - 90.61
        Hawaii - 4 - 11.40 - 90.08
        Rhode Island - 4 - 18.02 - 88.89
        Vermont - 3 - 15.70 - 84.45
        California - 54 - 13.39 - 82.46
        New Mexico - 5 - 8.56 - 76.55
        Pennsylvania - 23 - 9.02 - 74.78
        Minnesota - 10 - 11.63 - 74.28
        Washington - 11 - 11.44 - 74.16
        Missouri - 11 - 10.15 - 73.39
        Tennessee - 11 - 4.65 - 73.06
        Oregon - 7 - 9.95 - 70.55
        Delaware - 3 - 8.20 - 70.05
        Louisiana - 9 - 4.61 - 69.53
        Michigan - 18 - 7.40 - 69.17

        Iowa - 7 - 6.01 - 66.07

        Connecticut - 8 - 6.43 - 64.91
        Maine - 4 - 8.38 - 63.76
        Kentucky - 8 - 3.21 - 61.75
        Wisconsin - 11 - 4.35 - 60.12
        Colorado - 8 - 4.26 - 59.13
        New Jersey - 15 - 2.37 - 57.60
        Nevada - 4 - 2.63 - 55.02
        Montana - 3 - 2.51 - 54.80
        Ohio - 21 - 1.83 - 54.37
        New Hampshire - 4 - 1.22 - 52.70
        Georgia - 13 - 0.21 - 52.20

        The first group of states (Illlinois to Michigan), plus the 52 electoral votes from the states in which Clinton achieved a majority, add up to 264 electoral votes.

        The second group of states (Connecticut to Georgia), plus the 168 electoral votes from the states carried by Bush, add up to 267 electoral votes.

        Now, we have to assume that each state's Perot voters would have behaved the same way, and this is almost certainly an erroneous assumption.  But we can estimate that about two thirds of Perot's supporters would have had to vote for Bush to swing the election.  Given Perot's socially liberal stands on abortion, gun control, and other issues, it is debatable whether this would have occurred.

        According to the chart, the decisive state was Iowa.  Iowa would have gone to Bush if just over 66% of the state's voters had chosen Bush over Clinton.

        FWIW, Clinton's popular vote margin over Bush was 5.56%.  Bush would have tied Clinton if 64.70% of Perot's voters had voted for him, and the remaining 35.30% had voted for Clinton.

        (Data from Dave Leip's site.)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site