From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: De Armond wants it both ways (was: I want my Coke)
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 17:24:00 GMT

In <wr_q-mp@dixie.com>, John De Armond writes:

>I previously wrote in response to Frank Crary:

>>The only bright side is you libernuts who WILL vote for Marrou are so few
>>it hopefully won't matter.  "Then why have I been arguing with you?"
>>To turn the fence strattling lurkers who are silently reading this
>>thread.

>>Hey Frank.  I'll betcha a coke you don't get 1 %.  Hell I'll betcha you
>>don't get 0.5% of the vote.  Bet?

>From elsewhere on the net:

>Here's what happened:  We relied on Associated Press for our national
>numbers. AP said it would send out third-party numbers starting at
>10:30 p.m. They didn't. I have no idea why.  But if their newsroom was
>anything like ours, I bet what happened was that some harried editor
>decided at the last minute that his staff had better things to do than
>worry about relatively trivial numbers. In our case, that meant not
>putting the number of blank votes in our tally charts; in AP's case,
>that probably meant the third-party numbers.  For what it's worth,
>here, finally, are those numbers:

> Bill Clinton, Dem 43,688,671 - 43 percent
> George Bush, GOP (i) 38,109,410 - 37 percent
> Ross Perot, Ind 19,089,432 - 19 percent
> Andrew Marrou, Oth 278,528 - 0 percent
> Lenora Fulani, Oth 211,742 - 0 percent

Note the media's math:  Bush + Clinton + Perot = 100.0%.  Very deceptive.

> [rest mercifully deleted]

>Ok, Frank.  I want my Coke.  More importantly, tell us what message this
>0.06% of the vote for Marrou sends to our newly more anti-gun congress?

It's closer to 0.3%, NOT 0.06%.  Sheesh.  And why were you so irritated by
people voting for Marrou if you knew that his vote total would be infinitesi-
mal?  That sounds a bit contradictory to me...

Note that John wants it both ways.  He bashes the Marrou voters for casting a
vote that will help Clinton.  He then laughs at the small total for Marrou
(note:  Libertarians did well in state and local races.  Perot took the
"none of the above" vote from Marrou).  Which is it?  If you were so convinced
that less than 0.5% would vote for Marrou, then how the hell can you say that
they gave the election to Clinton?  And I thought Slick Willie talked out of
both sides of his mouth...

Libertarians were elected in several state legislatures.  I believe that New
Hampshire has 4.  I think Nevada just got one (Nevada also has 10 Republicans
and 10 Democrats, so the Libertarian may cast several deciding votes).  The
Libertarians gained permanent ballot status in Pennsylvania, and I believe a
few other states as well.  So the vote for Marrou was low.  I expected that
due to the Perot factor.  However, the state and local results were anything
but a failure.  Too bad, John.  We're coming.  It may be a few years, but we're
gaining on the parties who take our support for granted.

All in all, '92 was a good year for the LP.  We knew that we would first have
to prove ourselves in state houses and city councils before gunning for the
big time.  And why does New Hampshire keep reelecting Libertarians in their
statehouse?  Are they all "nuts," John?


Tim Irvin
*****************************************************************************
Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian.