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

To: Norm Lenhart
Me thinks you missed the point, but that's OK.

If not for Perot, there would have been no President Clinton.

I could say the same about Nader, but with no President Clinton there probably would have been a different GOP Nominee in 2000.

It's that Space Time Continuum thingy, or is it that Butterfly Effect thingy? Glad you're here Norm. You keep my Blood Pressure up and I think I do the same for you. LOL I love the internet.

333 posted on 04/17/2012 9:54:35 PM PDT by Kickass Conservative (A day without Obama is like a day without a Tsunami.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 318 | View Replies ]


To: Kickass Conservative
If not for Perot, there would have been no President Clinton.

Without the GOP pushing their guy that lied to us and expected us to vote for him again, there would have been no Perot.

/johnny

340 posted on 04/17/2012 10:01:45 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies ]

To: Kickass Conservative

No, I get the point. But you are making the wrong point. My point is that to say “A vote for X is really a vote for Y” is a false premise. But people keep saying it over and over. Clinton benefited by Perot’s votes because of the dynamics of the race - IE Perot split the vote. That is not arguable. But to say ‘A vote for...’ is incorrect and is an incorrect excuse people waste time bandying around.

Semantics? No, just fact. Clinton would never gotten any of the Perot votes.


345 posted on 04/17/2012 10:06:42 PM PDT by Norm Lenhart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | 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