From: erics@infoserv.com (Eric S. Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Aren't we forgetting something?
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 09:23:03 PDT
Organization: Reigning Cats and Dogs
Reply-To: erics@infoserv.com
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.6v1


KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu (Kurt Ludwick) writes:

> mazzarel@spam.berkeley.edu (Ariel Mazzarelli) says:

> >Well tonight sure was sweet.  We even survived an early scare here in
> >California,  where in fact Herschensohn has yet to concede defeat.  In just
> >about every other respect,  a sweet election night.

> Don't you find that odd?  CLINTON wins by a landslide in California, but
> Boxer just BARELY beats Herschensohn, a -real- conservative, for Senate?
> I'd worry, if I were you.  I think the attitude is more anti-Bush than
> pro-liberalism.

Herschensohn is a real conservative alright. He ran what was probably
the most negative, dirty, lie-filled campaign that this state has ever
seen. And that's saying something, considering that people like Nixon
and Reagan have come from California.

> >But let's not forget,  there are still ten weeks until Clinton is sworn in.
> >Bush didn't look so good tonight,  what with the landslide and the upcoming
> >court appearances and all.  Our boy might get his chance just yet.

> Landslide?  Ignoring the electoral college for a moment, LESS than HALF
> of the country voted for Clinton.  Meaning, MORE than HALF voted against him.

Well, when you say less than half the country voted for Clinton, that's
always true of any candidate. Even when Bush got 48 million votes four
years ago, that was still out of a population of about 250 million,
and an eligible voting population of about 180 million. His victory
was called a landslide. What you really mean is that less than half
the people who turned out to vote ended up voting for the winner.
Even that isn't all that uncommon, having happened as recently as
1948, 1960, and 1968.

Now, let's take a look at the numbers. 38% of the vote went to Bush,
the worst showing for an incumbent president in 80 years (even Hoover,
in the middle of the great depression, did better). Of the 62% of the
people who voted for a new direction, 70% voted for Clinton. I'd call
that a mandate at least, and probably a landslide.

It's hard to get a majority of the vote in a three-man race. Clinton's
43% is about the same as what Nixon got in 1968, which was also a
three-man race. Had Perot not run, I expect Clinton would have finished
around 55%. You can't simply "ignore" the electoral college, because
the very purpose of the electoral college is to give meaning to the
popular vote. In this case it factors out the effect of a third-party
candidacy, and shows the true shape of the vote. Take Perot out of the
race, and Clinton probably loses Colorado and Montana, maybe New Mexico
and Maine. But he probably gains North Carolina, and maybe Florida.
The end result is that the electoral vote is about the same.

By the way, didn't *you* just say that Clinton won by a "landslide"
in California? He got less than 50% of the California vote. Kind of
proves my point, don't you think?

> I don't know what you guys are so happy about.  Clinton didn't win the
> election; Bush -lost- it.

This is exactly what a lot of Republicans are going to maintain - that
they aren't out of step with the country, they just had a bad candidate
who ran a bad campaign. The latter is certainly true, but the former
is also true. 38% of the vote for an incumbent president is symptomatic
of more than just a bad candidate. It took the Democrats 20 years to
recognize the lessons of McGovern's campaign. If the Republicans aren't
smart, the same thing will happen to them.

-----
Eric Smith
erics@infoserv.com
CI$: 70262,3610