“Did Perot and Bush prevail over Bush, because Clinton didn’t get over 50%?”
Boy, you really are missing the point. You need a civics lesson, so here it is.
You do realize you just gave an excellent example of the process we are now going through, right?
The 50% needed for Clinton was the electoral votes, not the popular vote. He was required to get 270.
You know what would have happened if no one got the 270 electoral votes? It would go to the House of Representatives to vote for the President. And guess what? It wouldn’t have had to be Clinton or Bush or Perot. It would have been whoever received the 270 votes from the HORs.
I hope you’re not suggesting you would give Clinton the election, because he had the most popular votes, if he failed to get 270.
BTW, you didn’t answer my previous question. Do you want to invalidate the 2000 election, since Bush received less popular votes than Gore, even though Bush received 270 votes?
I hope this lesson is resonating.
Capeche?
The answer was, no Bush and Perot didn’t prevail.
And yet here you go hoping Ted Cruz will.
And you wonder why we dismiss you clowns for the GOPe/RNC waterboys you are.
How’s that civics lesson?