when you vote you have no choice

[Leader of the Banned]

The point you missed, by a long shot, was profoundly pointed out in your response. You voted against something, not FOR something. That isn't really a "choice", now is it?

Wrong.

 

[mputnal]

the egregious behavior is on both sides. there's no difference. your "choice" is being bought now to be served up to you on the next ballot.

Yes our government is gradually moving away from freedom and closer toward a very powerful rich class who decide for us what is best for us. Each two party election will continue this this movement toward money and power because of the illusions being created by both sides. Idealism is being manipulated by the two party system to keep us divided. Vote Republican you lose. Vote Democrat you lose. Don't vote and you lose. The big election game is to spend more dollars than the other party for the sole purpose of dividing us. IMO if you can not see this happening then you have drank your party's illusion spiked coolade!

 

[m1a1mg]

Think about this for a moment.
Let's say billionaire Donald Trump runs for president as an independent.
Let's also say that it's Bush vs. Clinton, part deux.
Billionaire takes enough votes from Bush to guarantee Clinton victory.
Lather, rinse, repeat.

 

[Lake View Too]

I think that is called a "Reverse Nader", right?

 

[Leader of the Banned]

Think about this for a moment.
Let's say billionaire Donald Trump runs for president as an independent.
Let's also say that it's Bush vs. Clinton, part deux.
Billionaire takes enough votes from Bush to guarantee Clinton victory.
Lather, rinse, repeat.

If you're referring to '92, some have speculated that without Perot in the race, Clinton would have won by an even bigger margin. This time around though, Trump would steal most of the votes from the R candidate for sure.

 

[m1a1mg]

If you're referring to '92, some have speculated that without Perot in the race, Clinton would have won by an even bigger margin. This time around though, Trump would steal most of the votes from the R candidate for sure.

Hahahahahahahaha. Perot stole votes from Clinton? Let the hilarity ensue. Which political commentator said that?

 

[Leader of the Banned]

Hahahahahahahaha. Perot stole votes from Clinton? Let the hilarity ensue. Which political commentator said that?

I don't think he stole votes from Bush, but I do think he was a very effective mouth against the incumbent president.

 

[m1a1mg]

I don't think you get it. In '92, there were 3 candidates.

Perot-Libertarian
Bush Moderate Conservative
Clinton Moderate Democrat

In what alternate reality do people who would ever vote for Bill Clinton change their minds and vote for Ross Perot?

 

[Leader of the Banned]

I don't think you get it. In '92, there were 3 candidates.

Perot-Libertarian
Bush Moderate Conservative
Clinton Moderate Democrat

In what alternate reality do people who would ever vote for Bill Clinton change their minds and vote for Ross Perot?

Dennis Miller who at the time was kinda left voted for Perot. There were others. He appealed to young people and he appealed to the middle class. Lots of Democrats lean right on fiscal issues. I voted for Bush in '88. I myself certainly considered Perot early on. When he started to go insane I droppped the idea. The other thing is that I would not want to help Bush get elected by taking my vote away from Clinton. The man who helped Clinton get elected was Dan Quayle.

Clearly some Republicans voted for Clinton. I'll bet some of them wavered between Perot and Clinton. I've seen articles with analysis suggesting that it was more of a break even deal. Google it. Here's a quote from Wikipedia:

A detailed analysis of voting demographics revealed that Perot's support drew heavily from across the political spectrum, with 20% of his votes coming from self-described liberals, 27% from self-described conservatives, and 53% coming from self-described moderates. Economically, however, the majority of Perot voters (57%) were middle class, earning between $15,000 and $49,000 annually, with the bulk of the remainder drawing from the upper middle class (29% earning more than $50,000 annually).[SUP][39][/SUP] Exit polls also showed that Ross Perot drew 38% of his vote from Bush, and 38% of his vote from Clinton, while the rest of his voters would have stayed home had he not been on the ballot.[SUP][40][/SUP]

Let's consider the smoking Clinton doled out in 1992. This website lets you play with the electoral totals which in 1992 were 370 Clinton, 168 Bush, 0 Perot. http://www.270towin.com/1992_Election/interactive_map In the map below, I gave Bush a bunch of states. I assumed Clinton would win left and right coast, great lake states, Ohio, Iowa. Please to anyone reading, be reminded this is a fictitious worst-case map for Clinton. You should check out the real deal. I even gave Bush New Hampshire. Clinton still wins 272 to 266. So then where was Perot the spolier in the remaining states that Clinton won California? New York? Illinois?, Pennsylvania?, Ohio? Conclusion, it is a complete and total fallacy that Perot gave the election to Clinton.
[edit] Oops! I even gave Bush Iowa and Clinton still wins in this worst case scenario!

 

[m1a1mg]

Now, go back and look at Ohio and Colorado in the actual vote count. Then redo your map. Ohio was a toss up state for years. http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1992