Yes, they are both Red Herrings. Argue that the system's broken, not that legitimate results based on the system are a party problem or a specific candidate problem.
-Cameron On 6/12/06, Maureen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, you're right, of course, and that's what I meant to say. > However, Bush did not even win by a plurality in 2000, so discussing > whether or not Clinton won is definitely one of Cameron's red > herrings. > > On 6/12/06, Jerry Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > A simple majority would be 50.1% of the vote or higher. > > > > He won with just a plurality. > > > > On 6/12/06, Maureen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Which shows a simply majority for Clinton in each case. > > > > > > On 6/12/06, Howie Hamlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > 1992: > > > > > > > > Clinton 43% > > > > Bush 37.4% > > > > Perot 18.9% > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:208969 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
