From: baldwin@csservera.scs.usna.navy.mil (J.D. Baldwin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: A Clinton Mandate?!?
Date: 9 Nov 92 12:47:56 GMT
Organization: Comp. Sci. Dep't., U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD
In-reply-to: niepornt@fish.Princeton.EDU's message of 08 Nov 92 20:24:23 -0400

In article <1992Nov9.002423.20866@Princeton.EDU>
niepornt@fish.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes (quoting me):
>>Apples and oranges.  In 1968, it was abundantly clear to *everyone*
>>that every single vote Wallace got came from Nixon.  One can make no
>>such determination about whose votes Perot siphoned off.
>
>You can, actually, unless you're won of those people who think Gallup is
>part of a giant media conspiracy.  They *did* the survey, and Perot
>voters were split.  It would *not* have switched the election.  Well,
>not popularly.  I suppose the electoral college could have shifted.

Yes, another independent organization did an even more detailed survey
and concluded the same thing.  I suspected this was the case with Perot,
but of course there's no way ever to be sure.

Note that this says *nothing* about the overall effect of Perot's
candidacy.  He hit Bush hard, and he hit him often.  I still believe
(though not that strongly) that Perot effectively "spoiled" the 
election for Bush.  I also consider it well within the realm of
possibility that this was his intention all along, given his personal
distaste for the president.

[and, from a later message of mine]

>>I knew I'd regret that "every single vote" bit.  You are correct, of
>>course.  I still believe that most Wallace votes would otherwise have
>>been Nixon votes.  
>
>Well, you have two conflicting forces -- southern conservatives who
>detested l-word people, but who would kill themselves before voting
>Republican.  I bet party loyalty would have won out, but I wouldn't
>swear to it.  I wonder if Gallup did a poll showing the second choice of
>Wallace voters.  Probably.  If I have time, I'll go look this up.

If you do waste^H^H^H^H^Htake the time to do this, I'd appreciate an
e-mail copy of what you find, just to make sure I don't miss it.  I'm
quite curious about this.  Please keep in mind, though, that polling
techniques were far less sophisticated in 1968 than they are today.

>>The claim is "wierd" only if taken literally.  Humphrey was a northern
>>liberal.  The only "polling data" I have off the top of my head is the
>>1972 election, which speaks pretty clearly about the affinity of southern
>>voters for northern liberals.
>
>Um, the 1972 election also seemed to speak pretty clearly about the
>affinity of *northern* voters for northern liberals, so that isn't
>really much of an argument.  No one voted for McGovern.

But this, of course, contradicts your statement above about Party
loyalty.  I guess you must be saying that Party loyalty would have
gotten enough voters to vote for Humphrey in 1968, but not for
McGovern in 1972.  Given that McGovern essentially shouldered the
Humphrey-liberal mantle (with the exception of Defense issues), how
can you justify this?
--
 From the catapult of:              |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
   _,_  J. D. Baldwin, Comp Sci Dept|+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
 _|70|___:::)=}-  U.S. Naval Academy|+| retract it, but also to deny under
 \      /   baldwin@usna.navy.mil   |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23286 talk.politics.misc:59228