From: nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Election Wrap Up
Date: 6 Nov 92 22:38:46 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T Network Systems  -  Columbus, Ohio


Well, I did my duty and voted for Ross Perot, the only candidate 
that proposed realistic solutions to the problems that are most 
threatening to this country right now.  

I.

It is interesting that of all the candidates, only one did
substantually better than predicted by the polls: Ross Perot.  How did
Ross Perot do six percent better than most polls predicted?  There are
a lot of possible factors, among them:


	o The definition of "likely voter" used by the pollsters is
          faulty.  This seems very likely.

	o The assumptions that pollsters made about where the undecided
          votes would go were faulty.  This seems possible but in order
          to make up the difference between Perot's polls and his
          results you would have to assign him nearly all of the
	  undecided votes, which doesn't seem likely.

        o The sampling methods used in polls are not suited to
	  establishing the true level of support for a "maverick"
	  candidate.  If this is true then Perot's polls were always
	  lower than they should have been.

	o Others?

What's interesting is that if the polls never accurately reflected
Perot's popularity, what would his numbers have reached if they had?
Forty percent in the summer?  Twenty five percent in the fall?  Keep
in mind that Perot's results were approximately 6% better than
predicted in spite of the fact that some potential Perot voters almost 
certainly backed out on election day because the "wasted vote"
factor.

II.  

The Presidential vote totals virtually discredit the Libertarian Party 
as a party with any significant support for their ideals.   It appears 
that most of their support over the years has been as a result of being 
the most viable protest vote.  With a more viable protest option available 
it looks like they really don't have much more core support than the 
socialists.  

This is a shame because I would like to see a party that stands for
less government in all aspects of our lives that did not take it to
their ridiculous extremes.  We need to do more to protect all of our
liberties but we cannot pretend that we can completely ignore the
public interest.  

III.

I hope that United We Stand can organize into a viable third party.
They don't need to immediately start running candidates in every
state.  They could examine the major party candidates for each
national office and endorse one of them, running their own candidate
only if nobody qualifies for endorsement.

I think Perot's position should be as chairman of that new party, not
it's Presidential candidate.  If this happens and the United... Party
can find a candidate with Perot's charm but not his problems they will
be a real factor in the '96 election _assuming_ Clinton fails to
deliver on his promises.  

Of course, even the media is now starting to let the public in on the
fact that their chosen candidate has promised more than he can hope to
deliver.  Clinton will get a headstart since the economy is already
coming out of it's slump.  In '96 Clinton will claim credit for
bringing the economy out of it's '91-'92 slump and deny responsibility
for the unemployment, inflation and interest rates and debt that will
have set in by then.

IV.

I must say that I am pleased that Clinton will be able to stop any
further drift to the right in the supreme court.  I just hope that his
administration doesn't give any ground to the leftist/fundie axis that
has been pushing to limit individual rights under the guise of bills that 
claim to "protect children" and suppress "degrading" material.  One of
the funniest things about the election was seeing the liberals quickly 
forget everything they said in the '80s about Tipper Gore promoting 
censorship with the PMRC.

All of the liberal justices on the Supreme Court would be wise to
retire within the next four years.  

V.  

Note that everyone talks about how stupid the Electoral system is but
then the winning party always uses it to claim a "mandate."  No wonder 
the established parties have not lifted a finger to dump it.  The
presidency should be by majority vote with a run-off election in the
event nobody gets more than 50%.

Bill Clinton's policies are supported by only five percent more than
supported Bush's policies.  

VI.

It's laughable to see all the big spending liberal members of congress
coming out of hiding now.  Where do you suppose they've been?


"Don't drive too slowly."                 Richard Caldwell
                                          AT&T Network Systems
                                          att!cbnews!nrc
                                          nrc@cbnews.att.com