Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 24, 2014, 10:45:11 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  Election What-ifs? (Moderator: Bacon King)
| | |-+  1992
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Author Topic: 1992  (Read 12959 times)
jravnsbo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1898


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: January 03, 2004, 06:21:04 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

Currently in Iraq, risking my butt to protect yours!

Republicans think every day is July 4, Democarts think every day is April 15
President Reagan

Well I can hear you and soon the whole world will hear all of us. President George Bush
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35356
United States
View Profile
« Reply #26 on: January 03, 2004, 06:22:22 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15160
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #27 on: January 03, 2004, 09:39:01 pm »
Ignore

I believe it was during the 1960's.
Logged
Harry
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18257
United States


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: January 04, 2004, 12:32:45 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35356
United States
View Profile
« Reply #29 on: January 04, 2004, 12:37:56 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26588


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

View Profile
« Reply #30 on: January 04, 2004, 12:44:19 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

This place really has become a cesspool of degenerate whores...

Economic score: +0.9
Social score: -2.61

In MN for fantasy stuff, member of the most recently dissolved centrist party.
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35356
United States
View Profile
« Reply #31 on: January 04, 2004, 12:50:23 pm »
Ignore

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!
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26588


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

View Profile
« Reply #32 on: January 04, 2004, 05:22:33 pm »
Ignore

A Taft like humiliation for Bush41? Nice thought though.

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

This place really has become a cesspool of degenerate whores...

Economic score: +0.9
Social score: -2.61

In MN for fantasy stuff, member of the most recently dissolved centrist party.
jravnsbo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1898


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: January 09, 2004, 12:35:46 pm »
Ignore

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!
Logged

Currently in Iraq, risking my butt to protect yours!

Republicans think every day is July 4, Democarts think every day is April 15
President Reagan

Well I can hear you and soon the whole world will hear all of us. President George Bush
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26588


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

View Profile
« Reply #34 on: January 09, 2004, 04:53:10 pm »
Ignore

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

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!
Logged

This place really has become a cesspool of degenerate whores...

Economic score: +0.9
Social score: -2.61

In MN for fantasy stuff, member of the most recently dissolved centrist party.
jravnsbo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1898


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: January 13, 2004, 11:00:06 pm »
Ignore

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

Currently in Iraq, risking my butt to protect yours!

Republicans think every day is July 4, Democarts think every day is April 15
President Reagan

Well I can hear you and soon the whole world will hear all of us. President George Bush
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26588


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

View Profile
« Reply #36 on: January 14, 2004, 11:33:10 am »
Ignore

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

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

This place really has become a cesspool of degenerate whores...

Economic score: +0.9
Social score: -2.61

In MN for fantasy stuff, member of the most recently dissolved centrist party.
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26588


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

View Profile
« Reply #37 on: January 25, 2004, 07:27:00 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged

This place really has become a cesspool of degenerate whores...

Economic score: +0.9
Social score: -2.61

In MN for fantasy stuff, member of the most recently dissolved centrist party.
farewell
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58527
India


View Profile
« Reply #38 on: January 26, 2004, 08:34:10 am »
Ignore

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?
Logged

I may conceivably reconsider.

Knowing me it's more likely than not.
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26588


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

View Profile
« Reply #39 on: January 26, 2004, 11:39:08 am »
Ignore

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... Sad
Logged

This place really has become a cesspool of degenerate whores...

Economic score: +0.9
Social score: -2.61

In MN for fantasy stuff, member of the most recently dissolved centrist party.
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35356
United States
View Profile
« Reply #40 on: January 26, 2004, 05:04:17 pm »
Ignore

It is very unrealistic.  And, I got lost in the middle of it too.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26588


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

View Profile
« Reply #41 on: January 26, 2004, 05:18:06 pm »
Ignore

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? Sad

What part didn't you get?
Logged

This place really has become a cesspool of degenerate whores...

Economic score: +0.9
Social score: -2.61

In MN for fantasy stuff, member of the most recently dissolved centrist party.
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35356
United States
View Profile
« Reply #42 on: January 26, 2004, 05:19:41 pm »
Ignore

How did Perot double his PV total?  that's unrealistic, and I don't understand where he jumped from 19% to 37% so easily.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26588


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

View Profile
« Reply #43 on: January 26, 2004, 05:41:17 pm »
Ignore

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! Wink

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

This place really has become a cesspool of degenerate whores...

Economic score: +0.9
Social score: -2.61

In MN for fantasy stuff, member of the most recently dissolved centrist party.
farewell
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58527
India


View Profile
« Reply #44 on: January 27, 2004, 05:45:59 am »
Ignore

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:)
Logged

I may conceivably reconsider.

Knowing me it's more likely than not.
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26588


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

View Profile
« Reply #45 on: January 27, 2004, 12:55:16 pm »
Ignore

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... Smiley 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.
Logged

This place really has become a cesspool of degenerate whores...

Economic score: +0.9
Social score: -2.61

In MN for fantasy stuff, member of the most recently dissolved centrist party.
Pages: 1 [2] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines