Kennedy/Clinton vs Reagan/G. W. Bush vs Wallace/Strom Thurmond vs Perot/Anderson

[Stan]

Ok, I don't know if the word is right also in English, but I submit to You those "uchronical" (in Italian the word is "ucronico", like timeless, without respecting the cycle of history) election.
There is not a year of reference, these elections are timeless and is Your choice the political context.

Candidate are:
John Fitzgerald Kennedy/Bill Clinton (Democratic)
Ronald Reagan/George W. Bush (Republican)
George Wallace/James Strom Thurmond (Independent)
Ross Perot/John B. Anderson (Independent)

Who will win this timeless, all star, election?

[/]

tee hee

188-140-109-101

[Clark Kent]

This is something like what you're looking for.

Kennedy (1960) vs. Wallace (1968) vs. Reagan (1980) vs. Perot (1992)

Republican: Ronald Reagan (California)/George H.W. Bush (Texas) - 38.18%, 315 EVs
Democratic: John F. Kennedy (Massachusetts)/Lyndon B. Johnson (Texas) - 37.41%, 204 EVs
American Independent: George Wallace (Alabama)/Curtis LeMay (California) - 10.18%, 16 EVs
Independent: Ross Perot (Texas)/James Stockdale (California) - 14.23%, 0 EVs

[Stan]

Something like this...
Kennedy 211
Reagan 205
Wallace 109
Perot 13

[Higgs]

Something like this...
Kennedy 211
Reagan 205
Wallace 109
Perot 13

If Perot couldn't even win a state against Bush and Clinton, why would he win a few states against Reagan and Kennedy who are much stronger candidates?

[Clark Kent]

I think my map is the most accurate, since I actually used math and OTL numbers.

[Stan]

Something like this...
Kennedy 211
Reagan 205
Wallace 109
Perot 13

If Perot couldn't even win a state against Bush and Clinton, why would he win a few states against Reagan and Kennedy who are much stronger candidates?

Because in a 4 candidates race less votes enough to win a state.