Perot doesn't drop out

[A18]

I think we did this before, but I'd love to see a map. Does anyone have any state-by-state polls to see what areas looked like they might go Perot?

He was leading Bush and Clinton in the polls at one point.

[Hatman 🍁]

10% swing from Bush to Perot. (I think- may have been 20?) Whatever makes sense, I posted this yesterday on the random maps thread- nobody has guessed it yet

[Hitchabrut]

When Perot dropped out, it was a three-way tie, so I highly question the accuracy of the map.

[Hatman 🍁]

When Perot dropped out, it was a three-way tie, so I highly question the accuracy of the map.

It's just a swing from Bush- Anything could have happened. It is likely that the race may have turned into a Clinton vs. Perot race in some parts of the country and a Clinton vs. Bush vs. Perot in others.

[Jake]

I'm too lazy, but someone do a map with a ten point swing from Clinton and Bush each to Perot.

[Gabu]

I'm too lazy, but someone do a map with a ten point swing from Clinton and Bush each to Perot.

Perot: 374 EVs (38.91% PV)
Clinton: 127 EVs (33.01% PV)
Bush: 37 EVs (27.45% PV)

[Josh/Devilman88]

I'm too lazy, but someone do a map with a ten point swing from Clinton and Bush each to Perot.

Perot: 374 EVs (38.91% PV)
Clinton: 127 EVs (33.01% PV)
Bush: 37 EVs (27.45% PV)

I wished that really happen...

[MaC]

hey how do you post so that states are green?

[Jake]

I'm too lazy, but someone do a map with a ten point swing from Clinton and Bush each to Perot.

Perot: 374 EVs (38.91% PV)
Clinton: 127 EVs (33.01% PV)
Bush: 37 EVs (27.45% PV)

Interesting, maybe that's a bit high, maybe not. Thanks though Gabu

[Gabu]

hey how do you post so that states are green?

If you select any year other than 2004, "Tossup" becomes "Independent".

[No more McShame]

Bill Clinton 314 EV 38%
Ross Perot 195 EV 34%
George H.W. Bush 29 EV 27%

[A18]

[King]

hey how do you post so that states are green?

If you select any year other than 2004, "Tossup" becomes "Independent".

And for electoral accuracy, you really should select 1992.

[Gabu]

hey how do you post so that states are green?

If you select any year other than 2004, "Tossup" becomes "Independent".

And for electoral accuracy, you really should select 1992.

I did.

[Banana Republic]

Could Perot really have taken Utah?

[ilikeverin]

*blink*

[MaC]

hey how do you post so that states are green?

If you select any year other than 2004, "Tossup" becomes "Independent".

Thanks Gabu, I could also manually replace the color code as 3 right?

[King]

hey how do you post so that states are green?

If you select any year other than 2004, "Tossup" becomes "Independent".

Thanks Gabu, I could also manually replace the color code as 3 right?

Yes, but you would still have to change the value of 'year' in the url from 2004 to 2000 for the color to show.

[Erc]

Using the results of the tracking poll in May that was most favorable to Perot...

(Perot 39-Bush 31-Clinton 25)



Perot 437
Bush 92
Clinton 9


(Bush might win one of the NE CD's, but since I don't have good data there, I can't really say).

Using the last one before he dropped out...
(Bush 33-Perot 32-Clinton 27)



Bush 234
Perot 225
Clinton 79

Note that the number of razor-thin margins in this scenario is ridiculous...

Illinois is a three-way race, Clinton 34 - Bush 33 - Perot 32...
Bush wins Hawaii by 2000 votes...
Bush wins Iowa by 15000 votes...
Perot wins Michigan by 17000 votes...
Perot wins Ohio by 6000 votes...
Bush wins Pennsylvania by 22000 votes...
Bush wins South Dakota by 4500 votes...
Bush wins Texas by 64000 votes...
Perot wins Utah by 5500 votes...
Clinton wins West Virginia by 6500 votes...

A .8 swing to Bush from Perot (within the rounding, let alone the statistical, error):



Bush wins 278-181-78

[FerrisBueller86]

Could Perot really have taken Utah?

Utah was one of Perot's stronger states.  Perot's weakest showings were in the South, where people have the good sense not to throw their vote away on a kooky third-party candidate.  Now if only the Southerners went back to being Democratic . . . . . .

[No more McShame]

Could Perot really have taken Utah?

Utah was one of Perot's stronger states.  Perot's weakest showings were in the South, where people have the good sense not to throw their vote away on a kooky third-party candidate.  Now if only the Southerners went back to being Democratic . . . . . .

Top 5 Perot states 1992
1. Maine 30.44% 2nd behind Clinton only state where all 3 in 30's
2. Alaska 28.43% 3rd 1.86% behind Clinton for 2nd
3. Utah 27.34% 2nd behind Bush
4. Idaho 27.05% 3rd 1.37% behind Clinton for 2nd
5. Kansas 26.99% 3rd 6.75% behind Clinton for 2nd

[MaC]

One possible scenario.  Texas would have to be the big swing state between Bush and Perot with Clinton as the third party factor.

PV totals
Clinton-40%
Bush-33%
Perot-27%

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If Perot hadn't dropped out, I think that the extra votes he would have gotten would have largely from the Democrats not the Republicans.

A shift of 10% of the GOP vote and 20% of Denocratic vote produces a map like this (I special-cased DC to avoid the impossible result of th Dems geting less than 70% of the vote there:


231 EV (34.4% PV) Clinton/Gore
220 EV (33.7% PV) Bush/Quayle
 87  EV (31.3% PV) Perot/Stockdale

Assuming no shenanigans before the EV is cast by the electors, which may be a lot to ask for. I foresee a possible deadlocked House which could delay or prevent the election of a President while Acting President Gore is running things pending the election of a President if the GOP decides to be contentious, and with Minority Leader Gingrich, I think that if they can block a President Clinton they will.

[PBrunsel]

If this would have occured, Bush would have been given a defeat of Taft like proportions.

[Colin]

If this would have occured, Bush would have been given a defeat of Taft like proportions.

Not really since Perot hurt both Clinton and Bush. As has been stated before it would not kill the chances of Republicans and might have actually hurt the Democrats more.