[Shaun]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

WOW. I couldn't write a better scenario to win an argument than this!

[/ QUOTE ]

You must have an amazingly long losing streak when it comes to arguments.

[ QUOTE ]
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 ]

Sure, let's talk about 1992. So, what states do you think would have flipped in the absence of Perot? Let's start with a list of states that Clinton won by less than 5%:

Colorado
Georgia
Kentucky
Louisiana
Montana
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
Ohio
Tennessee
Wisconsin

Are you saying that all of these states would have switched? Note that, to switch, even if we assume that all Perot voters would have voted anyway, in many states those voters would have had to have broken overwhelmingly for Bush. E.g., Tennessee - Bush would need 73% of Perot voters; Louisiana 70%, Wisconsin 60%, New Jersey 58%. Note also that if even one of the states other than the three smallest (Nevada, New Hampshire, and Montana) does not switch, then Bush still loses.

I will eagerly await your no doubt detailed and well-supported response proving conclusively that Bush would have won.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't prove a "would have" and I really I don't feel like devoting the time to this internet argument to go back and look at the popular vote results of each and every state in the union in 1992. I'll leave that to you enraged liberals.

My guess is that a sgnificantly greater portion of 18.8 percent of the vote was out of the mix for Bush in 92 because more Republicans broke away from their Party than did Democrats. I'm not going to bother trying to "prove" this. If you feel like digging than you "disprove" it. Would this percentage, spread throughout the country be enough to win the electoral college for Bush? I think so, you obviously think not.