[Shaun]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
WOW. I couldn't write a better scenario to win an argument than this! You are aware, that there was a year called "1992" and that in that year Ross Perot first ran for President of the United States, are you not? Care to quote me those numbers, or does the fact that they are actually releveant to my argument make their use inconvenient?

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe you said the Democrats would have lost EVERY election since Carter without Perot. 1992 is one election. Now, by 'every' election, I'll assume you meant 'every' election and not just the 1992 election (which I'll concede, but once again, we're talking about every election). Since 1992, as I'm sure you're aware, there have been a few more elections that are tossed into this 'every' category. Take 1996, for instance. By 'every' you mean 1996 as well. I already showed the numbers on that one. The Democrats still would have won if we gave all of Perot's votes to Dole. So that one election shows that you're wrong. Then I showed the numbers on 2000, which Perot wasn't even a part of. Actually, the democrat (Gore) had a liberal taking votes from him, and he STILL won the popular vote. And since you're talking about positions being out of touch with the populace, the popular vote is really the only one that matters.

Way to not respond to me totally proving you wrong and somehow claiming you won an argument. Your statement is completely false.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I didn't spell this out enough.

My unspoken (and i thought, rather obvious) assertion is that had Clinton not been helped into office by Perot in 92 he would not have been elected in 96. I think that many objective observers would agree with this. He may not have even run for office in 96 without the win in 92.

By the way I'm a Libertarian not a dittohead.