was this map ever a realistic possibility in 1992?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 03:36:18 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  was this map ever a realistic possibility in 1992?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: .....
#1
yes
 
#2
no
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 23

Author Topic: was this map ever a realistic possibility in 1992?  (Read 2079 times)
WalterMitty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,572


Political Matrix
E: 1.68, S: -2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: July 09, 2011, 11:30:35 AM »

Logged
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,625
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: July 09, 2011, 01:54:36 PM »

where'd you get it?
Logged
Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook
The Obamanation
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,853
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: July 09, 2011, 09:10:36 PM »

Perot campaigns stronger and Clintons personal life is more damaging.
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,357
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: July 09, 2011, 09:29:13 PM »

If Perot hadn't shot himself in the foot with a lame VP pick and dropping out a billion times, yes.
Logged
DS0816
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,110
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: July 09, 2011, 09:40:24 PM »

Biggest flaw in scenario map is Oregon flipping out of the 1988 Democratic and into the 1992 Republican column. Michael Dukakis flipped nine states on Ronald Reagan's successor. In a party-pickup presidential election, four years later to unseat George Bush, it makes no sense (given voting pattern) for a state that backed the party-pickup's losing precdessor (again, in a pickup in 1988) to flip back to the incumbent White House party which would end up having lost the White House. So, right away, I knew to answer "No!"
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: July 12, 2011, 09:09:44 AM »

Some States here really don't make sense (SD, OR, NE...).
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,665
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: July 12, 2011, 02:04:19 PM »

SD could have gone to Clinton if Perot was a bit stronger and took away more votes from Bush, and OR doing relatively well for Perot is plausible enough.  I don't know what would cause NE from going from Bush's best state outside the South to being won by Perot - I'd see a Perot victory in ID as more likely. If Perot wins TX, I don't think Bush would still get above 40% in OK.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: July 13, 2011, 05:44:20 AM »

SD could have gone to Clinton if Perot was a bit stronger and took away more votes from Bush, and OR doing relatively well for Perot is plausible enough.  I don't know what would cause NE from going from Bush's best state outside the South to being won by Perot - I'd see a Perot victory in ID as more likely. If Perot wins TX, I don't think Bush would still get above 40% in OK.

Yes, all this is possible but not at the same time. It makes no sense to have Clinton winning SD but losing Montana, and Bush losing NE and taking OR.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,665
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: July 13, 2011, 11:04:04 AM »

SD could have gone to Clinton if Perot was a bit stronger and took away more votes from Bush, and OR doing relatively well for Perot is plausible enough.  I don't know what would cause NE from going from Bush's best state outside the South to being won by Perot - I'd see a Perot victory in ID as more likely. If Perot wins TX, I don't think Bush would still get above 40% in OK.

Yes, all this is possible but not at the same time. It makes no sense to have Clinton winning SD but losing Montana, and Bush losing NE and taking OR.

Perot could win MT by a much smaller increase over his actual result than would be required for him to win SD. I'd bet both Clinton and Bush would have a higher floor, and Perot would have a lower ceiling, in SD than in MT.  Bush couldn't win either if Perot were much stronger nationally. but yeah, no way OR goes to Bush (somehow I was thinking it was for Perot on that map).
Logged
SingingAnalyst
mathstatman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,639
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: May 05, 2015, 03:25:08 PM »

This is the best I see Perot ever having a chance at:

Clinton 359
Bush 156
Perot 23
Of course, NC may have flipped to Clinton in this scenario, possibly even AZ.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.034 seconds with 13 queries.