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: Bill who wrote (1284)	11/9/2000 11:02:50 AM
From: TraderGreg	Respond to of 6710

You may find it faulty, but did you do one? I looked at every state in 1992 and those that were slam dunks for Bush, I gave to him (I didn't even give Clinton a single vote if Perot had not been in the race) I focused on ONLY the states Clinton won in '92 and realized that Perot's exit from the race could have only made a difference if Bush had gotten upwards to 70+ of the TOTAL vote. In 1992, Clinton was indeed getting some of the Perot vote cause back then he looked like a Populist, remember back then, not today, back then. Two thirds of the Perot voters were totally new voters, verified by polling data, so there is NO way Bush could have gotten 60, 70% of the entire Perot vote when such a larger number of them admitted that they would not have voted. The Nader people did not make that claim. But, you're right, I'm done with the Perot issue as well. TG