Obviously, the more you fragment, the greater the likelihood of an extremely low % being needed to win and yes the likelihood of a buffoon winning. We are nowhere near that level of fragmentation and never have been.
But you didn't put that reference in your ORIGINAL post. This is what you "actually said" in that original post:
<<The pathetic creature, Clinton, still couldn't get half the votes.>> in your description of the '96 results. That predicate was written to serve as an adjective, so cut the crap. It was that reference that I was responding to, but you chose to re-invent your original post in your follow-ups.
Well guess what, in the face of a stronger third party candidate in '96(Perot), pathetic Clinton got a greater % of the votes than Bush and Gore this year, with 2 far weaker third/fourth party candidates running.
<<If you disagree, then lets hear you argue that Clinton would have won anyway if Perot had not been there to get 19% of the vote>>
Unlike you and others who just ASSumed that Perot cost Bush in '92, I did that analysis years ago. I have posted it on this thread way back...do a text search for "TG Perot Clinton Bush" and you will find it. I am not redoing that here...just remember, in '92 Perot attracted voters who were fed up with Bush...most of his attacks were against Bush as Clinton was still much of an unknown. I agree that Perot cost Dole votes in '96 but it wasn't enough to have made a difference in '96. I also agree Perot would probably hurt any Republican in general, but not in '92...it was a unique year.
As Nader and Buchanan have both correctly stated, the Reps and Dems are firmly entrenched and there are but two chances of a third party ever winning in this country...and slim is permanently out of town. Corporate America would never allow it. So, the potential for what exists in Germany and Italy isn't there...period.
No more arguing on this...if I told you the sky was blue, you'd claim it was teal.
TG |
