Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Electoral College 2000 - Ahead of the Curve -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cisco who wrote (334)	11/2/2000 10:01:40 PM
From: TraderGreg	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6710

I haven't been able to find anything on IA, NM, ME or AR. Zagby hasn't included those states in his tracking data. I have almost put OR in Bush's column. What I find fascinating is this.(NOte: some may disagree with this analysis but here it goes) Ralph Nader's 5% may have a larger impact on the election than Perot's excellent showing in 1992!! In 1992, Ross Perot got 19% of the vote, but, IMHO, he did not cost the elder Bush the election. Point in fact, the '92 vote had approx 12mm voters that didn't vote in '88 or in '96. Those 12 mm were primarily Perot voters. It is not a stretch to conclude that the vast majority of the Perot voters would not have voted in '92 had he not been running. Anyway, of the residual voters who went with Perot, Clinton would have still gotten a chunk of those, since Perot's anger was always more directed towards Bush. The upshot is that unless 70% of ALL the Perot voters had voted for Bush in key states, Clinton would have still received the majority of the electoral votes. Moreover, ince more than half of the Perot voters wouldn't have voted were he not in the race, it would have been impossible for Bush to have gotten 70% of the ENTIRE Perot vote. TG