Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: volunbeer
Very true but the Perot factor was huge in that election. No Perot and probably no Clinton.

We'll never know. Clinton won his party's nomination, so it's possible he could have won without Perot in the race.

I think Bill Clinton won because he is "an unusually good liar", as Bob Kerrey put it.

25 posted on 01/30/2007 11:29:31 PM PST by HAL9000 (Get a Mac - The Ultimate FReeping Machine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]


To: HAL9000
Clinton won his party's nomination, so it's possible he could have won without Perot in the race.

Not only possible, probable. Perot would have had to have pulled about 65% of his votes from Bush to have tilted the election to Clinton. I doubt that happened.

36 posted on 01/31/2007 1:03:40 AM PST by Fresh Wind (All we are sa-a-a-ying, is give Beast a chance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson