A Different America- 1992 General Election Edition( Please Read before voting)

[OSR stands with Israel]

I don't think an 11 point win among three candidates would lead to a deadlocked electoral college.

Not when the reason of 11 point difference is Clinton strength in south costing Powell and electoral the cost Kennedy in sky blue states

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Not to intrude, as I didn't vote in this, but that map (particularly the percentages) makes little sense. According to the poll results, Clinton got about the same vote share as Ross Perot IRL; if he's winning states in the South, that means his support is likely highly centralized in that region and thus would not have enough support in the North and West to hold Kennedy to below 40% in states like California. If, on the other hand, his support is not concentrated in the South, than Clinton's EV total is implausible. It's also not clear why Clinton performed better in NH and ME than he did in the Dakotas, given his status as the farm candidate.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Not to intrude, as I didn't vote in this, but that map (particularly the percentages) makes little sense. According to the poll results, Clinton got about the same vote share as Ross Perot IRL; if he's winning states in the South, that means his support is likely highly centralized in that region and thus would not have enough support in the North and West to hold Kennedy to below 40% in states like California. If, on the other hand, his support is not concentrated in the South, than Clinton's EV total is implausible. It's also not clear why Clinton performed better in NH and ME than he did in the Dakotas, given his status as the farm candidate.

It was my bad forgetting to change the percentages on some of the states but results stay the same

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Not to intrude, as I didn't vote in this, but that map (particularly the percentages) makes little sense. According to the poll results, Clinton got about the same vote share as Ross Perot IRL; if he's winning states in the South, that means his support is likely highly centralized in that region and thus would not have enough support in the North and West to hold Kennedy to below 40% in states like California. If, on the other hand, his support is not concentrated in the South, than Clinton's EV total is implausible. It's also not clear why Clinton performed better in NH and ME than he did in the Dakotas, given his status as the farm candidate.

It was my bad forgetting to change the percentages on some of the states but results stay the same

Ah, okay.