Ann Coulter is an idiot (and Ross Perot is a hero)

Which of course is stating the obvious. From yesterday:


Which makes you want to slap her upside the head and say, "Hey Ann, Presidents don't win on popular vote, remember?"

However...

It got me to thinking: even though Perot got zero electoral votes, how much of a spoiler was he?

Turns out it may have been quite a lot.

Popular thinking was that Perot mostly stole votes from Bush Sr, not Clinton. So, I wondered, what would have been the outcome if Perot hadn't run?

I decided to find out. I ran the numbers, and here's what I found: If HALF of the Perot voters were actually Bush voters ("stolen votes"), Bush Sr. would have won, 377 electoral votes to Clinton's 161.

Almost the reverse of what DID happen (168 electoral votes to Clinton's 370)

But what if "popular thinking" was wrong?

Well, even if only 1/3 of Perot voters were for Bush Sr (something I find unlikely), Poppy still would have won (274 to 264). Note that this is with 2/3 of Perot's voters going for Clinton.

All I got to say is, thank ghod for Ross Perot!

I was 18, and my biggest concern was the economy. I thought if he could start from nothing, and become a millionaire, he could do something about the deficit.

Perot drew in equal measures from both sides. And most of his voters backed him in part because they loathed Bush. If he had not been in the race, Clinto would still have won easily.

I wish more people would point out, when the subjexct of 1992 comes up, that Bush's percentage of the vote was the worst for any incumbent president in history.

Turnout had been flagging since 1964, from 62% that year to only 50% in 1988. It went back up to 55% in 1992 (but back down to 49% in 1996). Perot probably brought many people back to the polls who otherwise would have stayed home.

No surprise festering whore Annie would bring it up.

Perot "Stole" the election for Clinton because it was the Republican's election in the first place.
Just because the man runs doesn't mean that he is taking "rightful" votes away from Bush. They weren't Bush's in the first place.

It's one of the few things that political scientists agree upon. Perot's candidacy hurt Bush slightly more than Clinton, but not anywhere near enough to swing the election the other way.

Let's suppose that Perot did not run, and that the votes that would otherwise have gone to him were split 50:50 to Bush and Clinton. It seems to me that this would not change the outcome of the race.

For example, let's say that with Perot in the race, the results were:

Clinton: 1,000,001
Bush: 1,000,000
Perot: 200,000
Clinton wins by 1 vote.

If Perot had not run, and his votes were split 50:50, we'd get:
Clinton: 1,100,001
Bush: 1,100,000
Clinton still wins by 1 vote.

I'm stupider than Ann Coulter.

In my oh-so-clever analysis, I neglected to distribute the "if no Ross" votes to both Clinton and Bush--only to Bush.

oops. :+

I had started my reply, to show you how a 50:50 split would change say, Ohio, from Clinton to Bush...

And then I realized my error. I'M AN IDIOT!!!

::ahem::

Let me revise my original EXTREMELY STUPID statement.

It would take 90% of the Perot voters to be Bush voters ("stolen votes"), for Bush Sr. to have won. Even 85% wouldn't do it (and 50:50 certainly wouldn't do it, as you point out)

Sorry for my stupid Ann-like assumption, and my faulty conclusion.

Geez, I had such a pretty Excel spreadsheet and everything.

Based on an very unpretty assumption.

(Ah well, Ann is still an idiot at least)

edited to add:
ps Hi Manny! Welcome to DU! :hi:
(and thanks for your post, else I wouldn't have realized my error)