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: TraderGreg who wrote (4375)	12/3/2000 6:29:11 PM
From: moosebeary	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6710

<< Clinton was never talked about as a liberal in '92 and that is absolutely provable.>> Nonsense. Maybe you bought the idea Clinton was not a liberal, but the conservatives didn't, and that is where the Perot vote came from. It doesn't matter what you and the New York Times crowd thought, as they were not the ones abandoning the Republican party for Perot. The Perot vote was, in '92, made up of people who would have voted for Bush, just as this year the Nader vote was made up of people who would have voted for Gore. Gore would have won this year if there was no Nader, exactly as Bush Sr would have won in '92 if there was no Perot. Perot was percieved as to the Right of Bush, and took his voter base from Bush, just as Nader is to the Left of Gore and takes his base from Gore. Deprived of Nader, those lefties would vote for Gore, or stay home. In '92, without Perot, those Righties would vote for Bush Sr, or stay home. The variable here is, of course, how many would have not voted at all. But we will never know that...like dimpled chads, it is not divineable. The pre-dropout Perot percentage of approx 33% was bloated with people who would vote for Clinton, AND THEY DID VOTE FOR CLINTON. The 19% that stuck with Perot and DID vote for him, was 85% conservatives (by their own admission at the time, not now), and if they had voted, in a Bush Sr --Clinton only matchup, would have no more voted for Clinton than Nader people would vote for Dubya. Thats the way it is, even if you read an article in the Washington Post that said otherwise. REgards, Moose