Selene

Trump, Third Party, Evita And 2016

Recommended Posts

Much has been bandied about in the media and from some folks on OL that a Trump candidacy would elect Evita as President in 2016.

References have been made that Perot elected William Jefferson "alleged rapist" Clinton in 1992 with his third party race because Bush lost.

This meme has survived, by design, or, by a failure to analyze by folks.

However, I have always thought that Perot took more away from the Democratic ticket than the Republican.

I have always thought that Bush lost because he lost voters like myself, as well as conservative Democrats.and "moderate" libertarians.

Now that Trump has artfully managed to keep himself "first in the polls," [great repetition marketing by him whenever he speaks], which can be unreliable to predict who will actually vote, he has clearly laid out a probable third party run because a this particular point in American Presidential history, can work.

I decided to look into this and came up with an extremely cogent analysis by analyzing how the "excess Perot voters" voted down ticket.

This is a tried and true method to make probable conclusions as to election results.

Here is the skinny:

Perot got 19,660,450 votes in the 1992 Presidential race.

This represented a 13 million vote increase from the1988 race that elected Bush-Quayle against the latest progressive/liberal/socialist/marxist light Democrat Michael "I would kiss my wife's rapist" Dukakis.

Here is the first important discrepancy between the two macro election numbers between 1988 and 1992.

Clinton + 3.1 million more than the Dork Democrat in the Tank, Mike Dukakis Governor of Massachusetts.

Bush got - 9.7 million fewer votes than he received in 1988...an astounding figure.

This meant that the two (2) party vote fell by 7.0 million.

So,

If Perot had not been in the race, would those 7 million Perot voters who voted for Bush and Dukakis in 1988 have voted for Bush by a sufficient margin for him to overcome Clinton's 3.1 million vote lead. Those 7 million Perot voters would have had to favor Bush over Clinton by 5 to 2. Or, even if all 19.6 million Perot voters had voted for one of the major party candidates, they would have had to favor Bush by a 58% to 42% margin to overcome Clinton's lead and tie the race. Was this likely in view of the fact that the other 84 million voters were favoring Clinton by 7%, 53.5% to Bush's

Now as this analyst surmised, this election is a political goldmine for analysis because:

In the Governor's races, Perot's voters cast 18% of their ballots for the Republican candidates; 56% of their ballots for Democratic candidates, 17% for independent candidates, and 8% did not bother to vote for Governor. If Perot's voters had voted for Bush and Clinton in the same proportion that the voted for the Republican and Democratic candidates for Governor, Clinton's lead would have increased by 7.5 million votes.

In the Senate races, Perot's supporters voted 27% for the Republican candidates, 24% for the Democratic candidates, 23% for the independent candidates, and 24% skipped the Senate races entirely. (This does not include states that did not have Senate races.

In the House races, Perot's voters cast 22% of their ballots for Republican candidates, 19% for Democratic candidates, 18% for independent candidates, and 40% did not vote in House races.

Perfect...ladies and gents and all alphabet folks out there, what can we conclude from this?

I have the link.

However, since there are a number of folks here on OL that understand a lot more about mathematics than I do, does the math make as much sense to you as it does to me?

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much has been bandied about in the media and from some folks on OL that a Trump candidacy would elect Evita as President in 2016.

References have been made that Perot elected William Jefferson "alleged rapist" Clinton in 1992 with his third party race because Bush lost.

This meme has survived, by design, or, by a failure to analyze by folks.

However, I have always thought that Perot took more away from the Democratic ticket than the Republican.

Have a look at the analysis provided by Steve Kornacki that I referred to earlier:

The myths that just won’t die | Repeat after me: Ross Perot didn't cost George H.W. Bush the election

Instead of recounting all of the details of the ’92 race here, I’ll simply refer you to one of my previous posts on the subject. If you want the Cliff’s Notes version it goes like this: (1) Economic anxiety was high, causing Bush’s poll numbers to drop to poisonous levels — by the fall of ’92 he was not an incumbent who, on paper, should have won reelection; (2) Not a single public opinion poll from the middle of July (when Perot dropped out the race) through the end of September (when Perot returned) gave Bush a lead over Clinton — not even in the immediate wake of the August ’92 GOP convention. In fact, Clinton’s average lead in this period was double-digits — and the race was not tightening at the time Perot jumped back in; (3) A comprehensive national exit poll found that Perot voters were divided almost evenly on their second choice and that Clinton — in a two-way race — would still have beaten Bush by 5.8 million votes (his actual margin was 5.3 million in initial ’92 tally).

-- I wondered why you skipped giving a link for your quotes of the Joshua Leinsdorf analysis. When I searched it up, I understood. That is some ugly markup.

I suppose Trump could decide at some point to bail on the GOP and run as an independent. But any parallels to a Perot candidacy will be strained, as you point out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-- I wondered why you skipped giving a link for your quotes of the Joshua Leinsdorf analysis. When I searched it up, I understood. That is some ugly markup.

I suppose Trump could decide at some point to bail on the GOP and run as an independent. But any parallels to a Perot candidacy will be strained, as you point out.

William, why do you enjoy fucking things up like that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-- I wondered why you skipped giving a link for your quotes of the Joshua Leinsdorf analysis. When I searched it up, I understood. That is some ugly markup.

I suppose Trump could decide at some point to bail on the GOP and run as an independent. But any parallels to a Perot candidacy will be strained, as you point out.

William, why do you enjoy fucking things up like that...

?

Edited by william.scherk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-- I wondered why you skipped giving a link for your quotes of the Joshua Leinsdorf analysis. When I searched it up, I understood. That is some ugly markup.

I suppose Trump could decide at some point to bail on the GOP and run as an independent. But any parallels to a Perot candidacy will be strained, as you point out.

William, why do you enjoy fucking things up like that...

?

I specifically did not want folks to just easily look.

I wanted them to think.

I was clear William.

Perfect...ladies and gents and all alphabet folks out there, what can we conclude from this?

I have the link.However, since there are a number of folks here on OL that understand a lot more about mathematics than I do, does the math make as much sense to you as it does to me?

Wow...to have the opportunity to "scold" a "scold."

There is always a positive if you look hard enough.

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bush destroyed his campaign when he lied: "Read my lips. No new taxes." He cut off his base at the knees. He turned himself into a Benedict Arnold.

--Brant

history won't repeat but it could look similar enough to be interesting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, since there are a number of folks here on OL that understand a lot more about mathematics than I do, does the math make as much sense to you as it does to me?

If you mean Leinsdorf's math, I regard it as sloppy, especially his paragraph in blue font. (It's probably arithmetically or numerically correct, but I didn't check.) A counterfactual of this kind is ripe for speculation. It's folly to even assume the voter turnout would have been the same if Perot had not been in the race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bush destroyed his campaign when he lied: "Read my lips. No new taxes." He cut off his base at the knees. He turned himself into a Benedict Arnold.

 

--Brant

history won't repeat but it could look similar enough to be interesting

 

Brant,

 

I put this on the other Trump thread, but I transferred it to here because of your set-up.

 

Trump's first video ad--on Instagram!

 

Enough is Enough- no more Bushes! #MakeAmericaGreatAgain

A video posted by Donald J. Trump (@realdonaldtrump) on

 

:smile:

 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, since there are a number of folks here on OL that understand a lot more about mathematics than I do, does the math make as much sense to you as it does to me?

If you mean Leinsdorf's math, I regard it as sloppy, especially his paragraph in blue font. (It's probably arithmetically or numerically correct, but I didn't check.) A counterfactual of this kind is ripe for speculation. It's folly to even assume the voter turnout would have been the same if Perot had not been in the race.

I agree. Too much would have been different except for the self inflicted damage Bush had already done. The deal he made on taxes just revealed him to be only another Washington, compromising insider blind to what was outside the beltway: Americans.

--Brant

William's fox pussy doesn't matter too much except to Adam because of all the work that went into starting this thread by him (I'd be pissed too, but wouldn't have set up any low hanging fruit having no expectation of controlling any discussion absent ability to delete any unwanted comment)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, since there are a number of folks here on OL that understand a lot more about mathematics than I do, does the math make as much sense to you as it does to me?

If you mean Leinsdorf's math, I regard it as sloppy, especially his paragraph in blue font. (It's probably arithmetically or numerically correct, but I didn't check.) A counterfactual of this kind is ripe for speculation. It's folly to even assume the voter turnout would have been the same if Perot had not been in the race.

I do not think that was the assumption.

However, I need to look at the prior Presidential races to see if the trending was towards more turnout or less.

Thanks, that helped.

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam wrote: Much has been bandied about in the media and from some folks on OL that a Trump candidacy would elect Evita as President in 2016.
end quote

Historical fun with Trump. Would Trump be arrogant like Napoleon? The Readers Digest debunks the idea that Napoleon was short. He was 5 foot 6 inches which was above average for those times. After four years of Trump would we be wondering how many more dunderhead decisions he will make? Will he invade Russia? And his Secretary of State Carly, could she antagonize China any more than she has since the yuan dropped another four percent? They are threatening tariffs. Since his impeachment, could we put Trump on the isle of Elba like Bonaparte? Of course with today’s technology he could be under house arrest - just not in the White House - but that could lead to his resurgence and then another Waterloo.

Is the internet really slow today for anyone else? I keep getting frozen screens for about thirty seconds. I deleted my cookies at Michaels suggestion about two weeks ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam wrote: Much has been bandied about in the media and from some folks on OL that a Trump candidacy would elect Evita as President in 2016.

Is the internet really slow today for anyone else? I keep getting frozen screens for about thirty seconds. I deleted my cookies at Michaels suggestion about two weeks ago.

It is your brain that is trying to tell you to cease and desist the annoyingly irrelevant crap that you throw into your posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter,

I don't speak for Adam, but I think he made a quip, not an attack.

The problem with written discussion interactions is that you can't see the twinkle in someone's eye.

:smile:

Michael

Moi?

sarcasm.gif

Now I feel like Megyn Kelly, all weepy...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's folly to even assume the voter turnout would have been the same if Perot had not been in the race.

I do not think that was the assumption.

Again reading Leinsdorf's paragraph in blue font, I think we are both half-right. He first assumed the total number of votes was the same as in 1988. Then he assumed the total number of votes was what it actually was in 1992. Both with Perot not a candidate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's folly to even assume the voter turnout would have been the same if Perot had not been in the race.

I do not think that was the assumption.

Again reading Leinsdorf's paragraph in blue font, I think we are both half-right. He first assumed the total number of votes was the same as in 1988. Then he assumed the total number of votes was what it actually was in 1992. Both with Perot not a candidate.

Agreed.

I went to his website and he has some links to potentially interesting topics.

No time today to look at it.

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, since there are a number of folks here on OL that understand a lot more about mathematics than I do, does the math make as much sense to you as it does to me?

If you mean Leinsdorf's math, I regard it as sloppy, especially his paragraph in blue font. (It's probably arithmetically or numerically correct, but I didn't check.) A counterfactual of this kind is ripe for speculation. It's folly to even assume the voter turnout would have been the same if Perot had not been in the race.

I do not think that was the assumption.

However, I need to look at the prior Presidential races to see if the trending was towards more turnout or less.

Thanks, that helped.

A...

1984 - 92.6 million

1988 - 91.5 million

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...