By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Ron Paul is on the Montana Presidential Ballot..Can Obama capitalize?

madskillz on 10 September 2008
TheSource said:

Ron Paul got the nod from Montana's Constitution Party.

He beat Mccain in the Montana caucus, and then got ~20% of the Republican Primary vote.

Perot got 26% of the vote in Montana in 1992...

 

Paul could probably get 5-8% of the vote in Montana if he organizes. Thats dangerous for Mccain.

So: Will Ron Paul give Montana to the Dems like Perot did in 92'?

 

In 1992 it was like 38-35-26 Clinton-Bush-Perot.

I think something like 45-42-11 Obama-Mccain-Paul could happen in this election

That would be funny as hell. As Vin Diesel said in 'Fast and the Furious,':

It doesn't matter if you win by a second or a mile, winning is winning!

 

 



Around the Network
TheSource on 10 September 2008

Jackson have you seen the electoral college map from 1992? Clinton won tons of normally republican states by only a few points because of Perot.



People are difficult to govern because they have too much knowledge.

When there are more laws, there are more criminals.

- Lao Tzu

Jackson50 on 10 September 2008
TheSource said:

Jackson have you seen the electoral college map from 1992? Clinton won tons of normally republican states by only a few points because of Perot.

 

Yes, I have looked at the EC map and I find it spurious to say that Clinton won tons of GOP states because of Perot. If one looks at the exit polling from the 92 election, one will find that had Perot not been on the ballot, 38% of his voters said they would have voted for Clinton and 38% said they would have voted for Bush. The same thing happened along ideological lines. Perot received an equal number of conservatives and liberal votes (18%) and received 21% of the moderate vote. Reagan was the last Republican to win the moderate vote as it almost always breaks Democrat. There are factors that hurt Bush (30-49 age group and gender) and some that hurt Clinton (moderate vote, 18-29 age group and union households).

Of course, these are national numbers and not based on state-by-state results. Nevertheless, I still maintain that Perot negatively effected both Clinton and Bush fairly equally. If anything, Perot may have prevented Clinton from winning a majority of the popular vote as opposed to costing Bush the election.