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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : TGL WHAAAAAAAT! Alerts, thoughts, discussion. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: y2kfree_radical who wrote (69898)	11/5/2000 3:02:00 PM
From: justmickey	Respond to of 150070

Yes Harry, the last few weeks. Think about what you just said. The convention was 4 months ago. Since then, Mr. Cain has made it clear he would not run with Mr. Bush, and it took major arm twisting on the part of the republican party to get him to endorse the man at all (an action which has deminished the man in my eyes). When have you ever seen the number 2 man work so hard to AVOID endorsing the number 1 man? Mickey

To: y2kfree_radical who wrote (69898)	11/5/2000 5:23:27 PM
From: TraderGreg	Respond to of 150070

Sorry , Rad, I don't agree. Ralph Nader's 5% may have a larger impact on the election than Perot's excellent showing in 1992 because of his popularity in CA, MN, WA, OR, WI and MN, and even FL. 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. If you recall, when Perot was solidly in the lead in early/mid '92, Clinton was running THIRD. When Ross did his temporary withdrawal, it was Clinton who moved up in the polls, not 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, since 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. I will agree that Perot took votes away from Dole in 1996 since by that time, Perot was clearly anti-Clinton and his backers would never have voted for Clinton. But, in '96, Clinton's margins over Dole were too significant for Perot voters to have helped Dole. Remember, the Perot vote dropped by 12mm in '96.