>> “The only election that 39 percent by the incumbent would have been sufficient to win the presidency is the 1912 election.” <<
.
Eerily similar to todays situation.
Wilson = Obama
Rosevelt = Perry
Taft = Palin
Frightening to think about.
Actually:
Wilson = Obama
Perry = Taft
Roosevelt = Palin
“Frightening to think about.”
Palin is not nutty like Perot was. I think Perot suffers from a case of megalomania and a disconnect from reality at times. Remember when he got in the race then out of the race, then back in? And the assassins or whatever at his daughter’s wedding or whatever? He was unhinged about Bush.
I wouldn’t vote for Palin as a third-party candidate and I don’t think most conservatives would. She has to be smart enough from internal polling to know that a third-party run would not work for her and would get BO re-elected.
I do the numbers...
Wilson was invincible in the southern states.
To obtain a plurality, he needed just 33 percent of the popular vote (180 of 535).
Southern states + IN, MO, MD, KY were sufficient for him to win.
I still have to figure out Roosevelt and Taft though. It’s complicated. I’m assuming losses come with an equal distribution.
Wilson: 35 percent votes (-7)
Wilson: TX, LA, AK, FL, AL, MS, GA, SC, NC, VA, TN, + (IN, MD, MO, KY, CO, NE). 194 EC
Taft: UT, ID, WY, NM, OK, WI, OH, DE, NJ, NY, CT, RI, VT, NH, MA. 151 EC
Roosevelt: CA, WA, OR, PA, MI, MN, SD, ND, NV, AZ, KA NE, IA, IL, WV. 193 EC.
I am not frightened as I don't see any similarities at all. If Perry were to lose the nomination I see no chance of him forming his own party. Palin hasn't announced she is running but if she did and lost the nomination I don't see her forming her own party either.