1992

[jravnsbo]

When did Maine and NE adopt the split of EV strategy?  

I really don't think that Ross Perot would have carried any states, even if he hadn't dropped out and returned to the race in 1992.

US politics is generally geared in the direction of realism, and I think his support would have fallen away in any case as the election approached, because people would think that a vote for him was wasted since he couldn't win.

That was a strange election year, marked by an incumbent who had run out of ideas and seemed like a deer in the headlights, and a Democratic challenger of highly dubious character and integrity.  So for a lot of people (including me), these were not attractive choices, but I still don't believe that Ross Perot could have won a whole slew of states as some people have suggested.  At most, he might have won around 3 states out west, like Montana, with Clinton still winning the election overall.

But that's just my opinion.  We'll never know for sure.

He was an inch away from carrying Maine after he re-entered, so he would have won it if he had not fooled around.

[© tweed]

When did Maine and NE adopt the split of EV strategy?  

I really don't think that Ross Perot would have carried any states, even if he hadn't dropped out and returned to the race in 1992.

US politics is generally geared in the direction of realism, and I think his support would have fallen away in any case as the election approached, because people would think that a vote for him was wasted since he couldn't win.

That was a strange election year, marked by an incumbent who had run out of ideas and seemed like a deer in the headlights, and a Democratic challenger of highly dubious character and integrity.  So for a lot of people (including me), these were not attractive choices, but I still don't believe that Ross Perot could have won a whole slew of states as some people have suggested.  At most, he might have won around 3 states out west, like Montana, with Clinton still winning the election overall.

But that's just my opinion.  We'll never know for sure.

He was an inch away from carrying Maine after he re-entered, so he would have won it if he had not fooled around.

I don't know.  It only works with small states, though.

[Nym90]

I believe it was during the 1960's.

[7,052,770]

One of them adopted their's in 1991 (I think it was NE, not positive thoguh)
The other did somewhat before then.
However, neither has ever split theirs in this manner.

[© tweed]

One of them adopted their's in 1991 (I think it was NE, not positive thoguh)
The other did somewhat before then.
However, neither has ever split theirs in this manner.

Maine has come close twice though.

[Gustaf]

One of them adopted their's in 1991 (I think it was NE, not positive thoguh)
The other did somewhat before then.
However, neither has ever split theirs in this manner.

Maine has come close twice though.

It's on this site...

Maine was in 1969, NE in 1991.

[© tweed]

One of them adopted their's in 1991 (I think it was NE, not positive thoguh)
The other did somewhat before then.
However, neither has ever split theirs in this manner.

Maine has come close twice though.

It's on this site...

Maine was in 1969, NE in 1991.

Oh.  We look everywhere, and we're staring right at it!

[Gustaf]

A Taft like humiliation for Bush41? Nice thought though.

You suggested that, didn't you? What are you really saying? I am confused!

[jravnsbo]

in 1912 Taft was president but came in 3rd.  Wilson won and TR came in 2d on "Bullmoose" party

A Taft like humiliation for Bush41? Nice thought though.

You suggested that, didn't you? What are you really saying? I am confused!

[Gustaf]

I know what happened in the 1912 election! If I was easily angered I might feel a little insulted by that...

What I was referring to was the fact that RP suggested that Bush Sr. might have suffered a Taft like humiliation and some of us discussed that. Then he suddenly posts the post I quoted, and I didn't get what he meant.

in 1912 Taft was president but came in 3rd.  Wilson won and TR came in 2d on "Bullmoose" party

A Taft like humiliation for Bush41? Nice thought though.

You suggested that, didn't you? What are you really saying? I am confused!

[jravnsbo]

didn't meant o offend I really didn't think you knew and was just attempting to explain. all good.

[Gustaf]

didn't meant o offend I really didn't think you knew and was just attempting to explain. all good.

Sure, no hard feelings at all, as far as I am concerned!

[Gustaf]

What makes you so absolutely sure the Democratic house would have voted for Clinton? I distinctly remember reading an article about the possibility during the campaign and one Representative (I wouldn't remember who, or from what party) was quoted: "But how can we vote for another candidate than our voters did?" Partisan feeling was lower than then after 1994. Still, I'll agree they'd have *probably* overcome their qualms
 

The Republicans had held the White House for 12 consecutive years, and 20 out of the last 24 years. The last time a Democrat had been reelected was 1944, 48 years back. I don't think that the Dems would have been willing to give away the presidency.

[minionofmidas]

If we suppose a swing to Perot of 14%, half from Bush, half from Clinton, it would give the PV Clinton 36%, Bush 30% and Perot 33%, with Perot running is second place. I have distributed his pickup equally over the country, which might not be right, but probably would not help Perot that much anyway.

In addition to the above states, Perot would then pick up Texas, Oklahoma and South Dakota from Bush, as well as coming within 0.15% of winning North Dakota and 0.07% of winning Florida. He would also pick up Washington, Oregon, New Hampshire, Colorado, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Connecticut and Ohio from Clinton, making the total number of EVs the following:

Perot: 158

Bush: 101

Clinton: 279

So Clinton would still win. And most of the remaining Clinton states are those in the south, mid-west, west and North East where he had close to 50%. So it is hard to see Clinton not losing that election, it seems to me like most of the places where Perot was strong were GOP territory, he couldn't have hurt Clinton that much either way.
Clinton:

How high do you have to go
a for an election decided by the house
b for a Perot victory?

[Gustaf]

If we suppose a swing to Perot of 14%, half from Bush, half from Clinton, it would give the PV Clinton 36%, Bush 30% and Perot 33%, with Perot running is second place. I have distributed his pickup equally over the country, which might not be right, but probably would not help Perot that much anyway.

In addition to the above states, Perot would then pick up Texas, Oklahoma and South Dakota from Bush, as well as coming within 0.15% of winning North Dakota and 0.07% of winning Florida. He would also pick up Washington, Oregon, New Hampshire, Colorado, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Connecticut and Ohio from Clinton, making the total number of EVs the following:

Perot: 158

Bush: 101

Clinton: 279

So Clinton would still win. And most of the remaining Clinton states are those in the south, mid-west, west and North East where he had close to 50%. So it is hard to see Clinton not losing that election, it seems to me like most of the places where Perot was strong were GOP territory, he couldn't have hurt Clinton that much either way.
Clinton:

How high do you have to go
a for an election decided by the house
b for a Perot victory?

a) If you add another 2% to Perot's vote, 1% from Bush and 1% from Clinton, it makes the PV totals:

Clinton: 35%

Perot: 35%

Bush: 29%

Perot now picks up Vermont, Delaware and Rhode Island from Clinton. He would obviously also pick up Florida and North Dakota, but I didn't bother to check the others.

The EV totals would be:

Clinton: 269

Perot: 189

Bush: 80

And the election get thrown into the house.

b) I now see that Alaska, Utah and Idaho would have gone Perot at a much earlier stage, I just missed it. With my new numbers Nebraska, Missouri and Indiana goes to Perot as well. If we add another 2% to Perot, 1% each from the other candidates, he also picks up Michigan, Iowa, Massachusetts and California.

The PV totals would then be:

Perot: 37%

Clinton: 34%

Bush: 28%  

And the EV totals:

Perot: 320

Clinton: 167

Bush: 51

But this is so unrealistic, that I don't really know why I even bother...

[© tweed]

It is very unrealistic.  And, I got lost in the middle of it too.

[Gustaf]

It is very unrealistic.  And, I got lost in the middle of it too.

I know it's unrealistic, and I'm not sure why I began to post it in the first place, but Trondheim asked me, and I obliged...

What do you mean got lost in the middle? Am I not good at this?

What part didn't you get?

[© tweed]

How did Perot double his PV total?  that's unrealistic, and I don't understand where he jumped from 19% to 37% so easily.

[Gustaf]

How did Perot double his PV total?  that's unrealistic, and I don't understand where he jumped from 19% to 37% so easily.

Well, ehhh...he, you know...he just did, don't ask stupid questions like that!

And, yes, btw, that is the unrealistic part I referred to in my post...

[minionofmidas]

The whole point was: How much of the vote would Perot have needed to win? (Of course we're three people who agree this was never any likely, and was totally impossible by the end of the campaign.) So he just added them. Maybe someone stuffing ballot boxes:)

[Gustaf]

The whole point was: How much of the vote would Perot have needed to win? (Of course we're three people who agree this was never any likely, and was totally impossible by the end of the campaign.) So he just added them. Maybe someone stuffing ballot boxes:)

Lol... Yes, the main point was to see how much would have been required to change the end result, and that rather proves the point. It's obvious that Perot's voters weren't optimally distributed, since he would have needed a clear win in PV to win the EC.

[Don Vito Corleone]

Perot probably would have needed at least a 5% advantage in the polls in order to get a 1% advantage on election day in order to win because of the lack of party GOTV efforts that the Republicans and Democrats are able to do.

Perot would have also done better had he chosen a sensible Vice Presidential candidate - maybe Lowell Weicker?

What would have been interesting is to see how the Electoral vote would have turned out.  Perot did extremely well in the west and probably would have won everything except California and Utah.  The margins of victory for Bush in the south were already small and a strong Perot might have caused some of them to swing to Clinton.

In the northeast Perot would pick up Maine and New Hampshire and I think that Vermont could have been persuaded.

Yeah, pretty much this.