The official **KERRY IS TOAST** thread.

[Ronnie Raygun]

Perot got 17% of the vote.....What did Nadar get?....7%

The 92' election was more "clear" because Perot took more of the vote from republicans than Nadar did from Democrats.

[mburbank]

I actually can't recall Clintons margin of victory,or how it went state by state. If you took every Perot vote and gave it to Bush, I can't even guess if he have beaten Clinton, though I suppose it's possible. I think you'd have to stretch to say that 100% Perot voters were lapsed republicans.

On the other hand, I'm fairly sure if all of Naders votes had gone to Gore, he'd have won in Florida and taken the lectoral college as ell as the popular vote. I think it's safe to say there were no lapsed republicans voting for Nader.

Ecah election had a spolier, and in each case that spolier had an impact. Between those two spoilers there was a spoiler free election, which Clinton one over Dole with a large margin.

[Ronnie Raygun]

"If you took every Perot vote and gave it to Bush, I can't even guess if he have beaten Clinton, though I suppose it's possible. I think you'd have to stretch to say that 100% Perot voters were lapsed republicans." - Max

Perot had a very conservative political stance....I think everyone can agree on that.

Here are the popular results.....

Clinton 43.3%

Bush 37.7%

Perot 19.0%

If you give Clinton 1/3 of Perot's vote, which I think is extremely generous, Bush still wins the popular vote by almost a percentage point......about the same as Gore.

I think the 92' election and the 00' election are almost identical.

Still, without Perot, Bush wins....

[The One and Only...]

I don't think Clinton would have gotten any of Perot's vote. It would be more appropriate to say that 1/3 would have just stayed home.

[Ronnie Raygun]

I'm sure SOME of Perot's vote would have gone to Clinton......just not much.