ross perot split the repub vote in half giving clinton the majority
2007-02-22 12:34:33 · 5 answers · asked by kramer 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
No more of a fluke than when Al Gore won the popular vote, yet George Bush became President.
2007-02-26 09:22:33 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, the 1992 Presidential Election was different in that we had a third candidate in Ross Perot. I don't think he made a major impact since the man is nuts. I have asked others about that election, myself. I know the results were: Clinton, 43%, Bush, 38%, Perot, 19%. So Clinton did not get a majority of the vote. I think he was aided in the end by former President Bush being a lousy campaigner and Ross Perot being mentally unstable.
2007-02-22 12:53:26 · answer #2 · answered by midjrsy 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Clinton won the Presidency with only 42% of the vote, and it was reported that he was disappointed in not getting 50% in 96. The saddest part of this is that Ross Perot, who took 19% of the vote said he didn't want to be President, but only ran to be able to talk to the American People. The more we run into these problems, the more convinced I am that we need Instant Runoff Voting. With the Electorate so polarized, and the issues so far apart, I only foresee more hatred in Politics.
2007-02-22 12:46:19 · answer #3 · answered by Brian L 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
such a fluke that Clinton was re-elected again in 96 by a large margin. The same thing happened in 2000, Nadar took some of the liberal vote from Gore and BUsh still had to cheat to win.
2007-02-22 12:40:37 · answer #4 · answered by miggity182 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No I don't think that it was a fluke. I think that it was a well planned Left wing power grab.
2007-02-22 12:39:26 · answer #5 · answered by The Mad Cow 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋