From: pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson)
Subject: Re: Presidential predictions Re: Perot?
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 13:07:39 GMT

In article <dano.711761245@srl01> dano@srl01.usl.edu (Dan Stephenson) writes:
>I too think that George Bush will ultimately win the presidential race.

You obviously did inhale.  If Clinton doesn't make too many gaffes
between now and the election he will win.  Actually, right now Bush is
self destructing to such a degree that I'm not sure what Clinton can do
to lose.

>Simply put, I do not think American voters are stupid enough to fall
>for Clinton's demogogic rhetoric.  

If this were true Reagan would never have been president and certainly
no one would still think that Reagan was a great president.  Look, if
the choice is Clinton's rhetoric or Bush's record Clinton wins hands
down.

>I think that once George Bush starts
>campaigning hard, and after the Republican convention, many fresh-from-
>the-Democratic-convention Clinton supporters and especially the more
>moderate Perot-> Clinton supporters will become disillusioned.  

I guess this means you think Bush will wage a massively negative
campaign.  After all, how else could Bush make people disillusioned with
Clinton's plan?  In 1988 Bush's campaign stategy was to portray himself
as not being Dukakis or Carter (which makes me wonder, how was it that
Carter could screw things up in 4 years in such a way that Reagan
couldn't undo it in eight?  Obviously this was crapola of the
first magnitude.).  This year Bush can't run on not being Clinton.  He
will have to run on his own record.  Right now most people feel that
Bush's record sucks (as measured by his approval rating).

>Right
>now they are full of zeal from Clinton's promises (which they will
>eventually realize he cannot deliver).  

There isn't a single voter in the country that believed Bush would keep
his 'no new taxes' pledge yet he was elected anyway.

>[garbage about how its all the fault of congress deleted]

Look, I bet if you asked people what Bush's domestic agenda is and has
been for the past three years they would say cut the capital gains tax.
That's the only domestic policy that Bush has lobbied for with any
vigor.  When Bush wanted to get congress to pass an aid bill for the
former Soviet Union there was a massive concerted effort to lobby
congress in support of it.  It probably wasn't even necessary in this
case since he was preaching to the converted.  I have yet to see a
similar effort put forth on domestic policy.  The question is what
difference does it make what Bush's domestic agenda is if he isn't going
to try and get it passed?
>
>My Popular vote predictions:
>
>George Bush:  55%
>Bill Clinton: 35%
>Ross Perot:   10%
>

My vote predictions:

PC users:
Bush:    80%
Clinton: 20%
Perot:    0%
Note: PC users are conservative and some would say backward thinking.

Mac: users:
Bush:    10%
Clinton  70%
Perot:   10%
Note:  Mac users prefer something new and exciting regardless of whether
it will work or not.

Amiga users:
Bush:    0% (PCs suck)
Clinton: 0% (Macs suck)
Perot:   0% (Irving Gould sucks [there is an analogy here])
Marrou  50% (The AmigaOS of politics; he lets you do whatever you want)
Other   50% (If some else voted for him he must be bad)

Unix users:
What's the email address of the voting both?

Unix gurus:
Which socket do I send my vote to?

Paul.