From: jester@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Jester)
Newsgroups: alt.overlords
Subject: Re: 92' Elections
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:31:25 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

bjmccall@cco.caltech.edu (Benjamin John McCall) writes:
>I hate to be the fourth person to jump on Jester's analysis, but I think
>it is clearly in error.

go ahead, I like constructive criticism Ben

>>Think about it, with three
>>candidates....no one is going to get a majority of the popular
>>vote and with a Democratic House and Senate, Clintto wins hands down.
>
>Hold on - you're not being coherent here.  It is possible that no one
>will get a majority of the popular vote, especially with Perot in the
>race.  However, we're now looking at numbers like 48% Clinton,
>34 Bush and 12 Perot, in which case Clinton would have a majority of the
>popular vote (assuming that the undecided don't decide and therefore
>don't vote).  In any event, it is possible that Clinton will take
>a majority and not just a plurality of the popular vote.

no you see, according to the wonderful laws in our country, even if
Clinto does get the 270 needed electoral votesto win, he MUST get the
popular vote majority..... There have been I believe 4 cases inthe 
past Benjamin Harriosn, Richard Nixon, John Adams, and one other
that did not receive the majority of the popular vote, but did receive
the majority of the electoral vote, and they won when the Congress
voted them into office.

>But that doesn't really matter.  What is important is that one candidate
>(Clinton) needs to obtain _pluralities_ in enough states to tip the
>electoral college in his favor.  According to even the most conservative
>Republican pundits (excepting those who work for George Bush), Clinton
>should have no problem doing this.

I'll agree to that...Bush has made an ass of himself lately.

>Perot will not take a single state.  No way, no how!  Not because he's
>an independent and independents don't win - I don't believe that - I used
>to support Perot.  I think Perot may even have won had he stayed in
>the race - but having pulled out, and having kept Stockdale as his
>running mate (did you see the VP debate???????), he doesn't have a chance
>to take a state.

I'm not so sure about this. I know he won;t win, butI will be willing to bet 
that he might take a few small states......Mind you VP candidate makes
not a president.Bush won in 1988 with Quayle as his VP, so as you
can see VP's don't havemuch to do withthe swing vote.

>>The only thing Ross Perot has done by reentering the race, is hand
>>the office to Clinton b4 November.
>
>True, in a sense.  It looks like Perot will only have two effects:
>1) He will help focus the campaign on the issues.  This definitely helps
>Clinton, because Bush has nothing to say about them and would much prefer
>to launch personal attacks.  Face it, Bush has failed - why would he
>possibly want to talk about the issues?

i know...he just keep saying so and so about Clinton and his 
anti-war demonstartions..like who cares.......

Just my humble opinion.

Jester
SOGDAC
-- 
Join the Omnipotent Overlords of the Omniverse today. Add to intelligent    	
political, environmental, and social discussions. Buck the growing trend of 
apathy in the world today, and most importantly have some well earned fun.  
Read all about us on alt.overlords or e-mail : jester@sage.cc.purdue.edu    
Organization: Sophomore, Mechanical Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA