I might suggest that the 19.0% for Perot was a vote against both Clinton and G.H.W.Bush -- Not just Clinton. That might be considered a time there was a "valid" 3rd Party Candidate. The Perot voters were definitely voting against BOTH parties. There's no way you can honestly be convinced nearly 20 million people voted Perot only because they didn't like Clinton.
43.3% Bill Clinton
37.7% G.H.W.Bush
19.0% Ross Perot
This time, < 1% for Nader? Hardly a vote like '92. This time it was a vote for one or against the other.
Jim Lubin wrote:
Oh Tod, with a few minutes of research, I am happy to report that dubious honor goes to Bill Clinton in 1992.1992
William J. Clinton - 44,909,889
George H. Bush - 39,104,545
H. Ross Perot - 19,742,267
Votes against Clinton 58,846,812
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781450.html2004 (Updated 11/5/2004 7:10 AM)
George W Bush - 59,645,158 (and still counting)
John F Kerry - 56,149,771
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/president.htmMore people voted against Clinton than voted For Kerry!
At 07:49 PM 11/5/2004, Tod E. Santee wrote:
On the flip side, given the turnout, Bush had more people vote against him than any other candidate in the history of the US. <-- It's all in how you look at it.And, given that huge turnout resulted in a 51-49% divide, one would be hard pressed to find anyone who could honestly call that a "Mandate" for the Christian or traditional or moral values Mr. Bush holds dear. Everyone believe their values are moral. That's why they value them.
(Political Capital my A$$... He'll spend something... that's fer shur)
Best!
Tod(Electors cast their votes in Dec. -- Some Rep. electors are now undecided and pissed at Bush!)
Jim Lubin wrote:
>Bush won the election by the largest number of
>votes in the history of the country.
