Presidential Election Prediction
Mike Schwartz
saying the following predictions for the 1992 Presidential Elections
WILL actually occur :) For fun, I have added some political predictions
for beyond this year...
President George Bush is re-elected in a landslide. His presidential
campaign will start after the conventions, and by August, his popularity
rating will rise rapidly. He will receive between 45% and 50% of the
popular vote and will win at least 40 states. His re-election campaign
will work extremely well, just as it did against Dukakis... :) The Dow
Jones will break $3600 ($300 point/10% gain) by January 1993. Hint: With
the current market prices dropping, it is a good time to buy stocks :)
H. Ross Perot will finish second, but well behind Bush. He will get
30% of the vote and a handful of states (6 or 7). Perot's popularity rating
is high, until he starts spending his money. He may win a big state or two,
even California (CA may end up with Bush, however). He never will be
specific enough about the plans he'd implement on the job to really
convince enough people to give him the job. A lot of negative ads will
stick to him like glue, as well. In the end, most people will say they
were glad he was on the ticket. He will make the best dang speeches in
the whole campaign. It will be interesting to see how much of that $100
Million he spends. What if it's 2x or 3x that in the end? What if he
hardly spends at all and gets all those votes anyhow? :)
Gov. Bill Clinton will actually finish THIRD because he wears size 36 shoes.
That's not a typo - clowns wear shoes that big :) He will run some sleazy
negative ads against both Perot and Bush close to election time that will
backfire and cost him votes. It turns out that Perot ends up stealing
many Clinton supporters away. Negative ads about his record as governor
in Arkansas will work so well. And to top it off, Clinton will not win
Arkansas, his home state (the most embarassing thing possible in this
crazy election :)
My congressional picks are equally accurate :) One of the two women,
likely Feinstein (she is a loser since losing her job as mayor of SF),
will not be elected to the Senate from California. Negative ads will
be successful against Arlen Spector in Pennsylvania and he will lose
(the "villain" in the Anita Hill hearings will work well). The good news
is that at least 140 House seats will change hands. The old congressmen
had a chance to do something significant in passing the Balanced Budget
Ammendment, but failed. In the interim, they will continue to gridlock
the government until election. Public opinion polls of the existing
arrangment will be the lowest in history. The people WILL throw the bums
out. The democrats will narrowly retain control of both houses, but the
republicans will gain significant numbers.
Be prepared to hear George Bush campaign against congress, continuously
until the election. It will be very successful. He will only refer to
Perot once in a while, but will otherwise ignore him. This will be another
key to his victory. Bush will also ignore Clinton, figuring correctly,
that Clinton will destroy himself. If Perot spends money, he should
concentrate on Bush for the same reason. If Perot spends any money on
Clinton, Clinton will lose big by it. The most recent American/Russian
Weapons Reduction Agreement will be signed close to election time. This
most remarkable agreement will show Bush as a leader in the world in
reducing the world's nuclear armaments
The good news is that the incoming congress will have a mandate/agenda.
The last time we elected many new congressmen was after watergate - the
mandate then was to control the executive branch. After 20 years, the
agenda needs to be changed. The new agenda is to end the gridlock and
get things done. This actually turns out to be a boon for the country
in the next four years.
The effect of the election on the democratic party will be severe. By
1996, if Bush and congress do anything over the next 4 years, and they
will, Dan Quayle will be a viable presidential candidate. Bill Bradley
will be the democratic presidential nominee in 1996, and he may be able
to save the party.
That's it for the predictions. Sorry to be so lengthy, but I wanted to
be as thourough as I can. I don't see anything to refute, it's just my
opinion. If you care, just file these predictions away, and see if I am
right in november. Feel free to post your own predictions, but only mine
are right :):):)
--
Author of Amiga GRn, MailMinder, Budokan, Beyond Dark Castle, Dark Castle,
and Genesis Dick Tracy and Marble Madness.
Mike Schwartz (ames!zorch!amiga0!mykes or my...@amiga0.sf-bay.org)
1124 Fremont Ave.
Los Altos, CA 94024
Arthur Adams
>President George Bush is re-elected in a landslide. His presidential
>campaign will start after the conventions, and by August, his popularity
>rating will rise rapidly. He will receive between 45% and 50% of the
>popular vote and will win at least 40 states. His re-election campaign
Now, be honest, how much of this is prediction, and how much of this
is "wishful thinking." This is a real trip out on a limb, considering
current polls.
>He will run some sleazy
>negative ads against both Perot and Bush close to election time that will
I don't know about said negative ads. It may prove, for all three
candidates, that effectively attacking both opponents will be too
hard, especially since this may actually turn out to be an election
based on real issues.
>It turns out that Perot ends up stealing
>many Clinton supporters away.
Right now, it seems that Perot is going to hurt both Clinton and
Bush equally. If he's as middle of the road as the few glimpses
of his views we've had yet, he's effectively an equal threat to
both.
>Negative ads will
>be successful against Arlen Spector in Pennsylvania and he will lose
>(the "villain" in the Anita Hill hearings will work well).
I'm certainly keeping my fingers crossed. :-)
>He will only refer to
>Perot once in a while, but will otherwise ignore him. This will be another
>key to his victory.
That's probably the best way to fight Perot. Perot is a
successful because he's captured the American people's attention.
The less attention he gets the better, as far as Bush and Clinton
are concerned.
>The good news is that the incoming congress will have a mandate/agenda.
>The last time we elected many new congressmen was after watergate - the
>mandate then was to control the executive branch. After 20 years, the
>agenda needs to be changed. The new agenda is to end the gridlock and
>get things done. This actually turns out to be a boon for the country
The best way to end gridlock is to get the Executive and Legislative
branches controlled by the same party. People like to blame Congress
alone for gridlock, and the fault is their, but Bush reguarly submits
bills he knows full well can't get passed.
Lots of the "change" candidates are running on a platform
of "we won't bounce checks, we won't sell drugs in the Post
Office, etc." That's good, but it's not real substantive change.
>The effect of the election on the democratic party will be severe. By
>1996, if Bush and congress do anything over the next 4 years, and they
>will, Dan Quayle will be a viable presidential candidate. Bill Bradley
>will be the democratic presidential nominee in 1996, and he may be able
>to save the party.
>
As a Democrat, I know how Republicans must have felt around 1975.
It doesn't look good for the party right now. Like I heard
Dave Barry say, "After years of coming in second, the Democrats
finally have a candidate who may very well come in third."
Bill Clinton showed promise, looking like an electable candidate,
until he started to make an ass of himself. I'm hoping for
Tsongas or Gore myself.
>Feel free to post your own predictions, but only mine
>are right :):):)
No, MINE are right.
My prediction: Bush and Perot get most of the states, but Clinton
carries enough to thror the elecion into the House. There are
enough Congressspeople with guts to put whoever carries the popular
vote nationwide in, and the election goes to Perot, in a squeaker.
--
The world is not analog. The world is digital,
with an incredible number of bits.
Arthur C. Adams (not the comic-book artist)
E-Mail aca...@afterlife.ncsc.mil
Mike Schwartz
>In article <mykes...@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> my...@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
>>President George Bush is re-elected in a landslide. His presidential
>>campaign will start after the conventions, and by August, his popularity
>>rating will rise rapidly. He will receive between 45% and 50% of the
>>popular vote and will win at least 40 states. His re-election campaign
>
>Now, be honest, how much of this is prediction, and how much of this
>is "wishful thinking." This is a real trip out on a limb, considering
>current polls.
>
Do you want me to predict what I believe will happen or NOT? :) My predictions
are not wishful thinking, they are REALLY the way I predict things will happen.
>>He will run some sleazy
>>negative ads against both Perot and Bush close to election time that will
>
>I don't know about said negative ads. It may prove, for all three
>candidates, that effectively attacking both opponents will be too
>hard, especially since this may actually turn out to be an election
>based on real issues.
>
As I stated, I believe Bush will not do much about Perot. Perot will self-
destruct on his own. And I admire Perot as much as anyone can, so don't
consider me a Perot-hater (there's that word: hate, again :) Clinton
certainly can NOT run on the issues and look legitimate. His own record
as governor of Arkansas won't stand up too well.
As for Perot, his polls are slipping already, and they will continue to do
so - that makes my scenario look much more realistic. By the way, today,
it was announced on network news that Perot has spent money investigating,
or in other words digging for dirt, Bush's past. The news didn't say that
he found anything, but that he did look into many things. It _used_ to be
(before Watergate) an EVIL thing to do - let's see how the polls react! If
it is an indication of how he intends to run the country, by blackmail, he
won't stand a chance.
And on "America Speaks Out" (the title may be wrong... :) with Bill Moyers
last week, they showed sound bites. First Clinton, then Bush, back and forth.
And the two aren't proposing anything different from eachother. Given the
choice of the SAME agenda from the two candidates, Bush wins big.
>>It turns out that Perot ends up stealing
>>many Clinton supporters away.
>
>Right now, it seems that Perot is going to hurt both Clinton and
>Bush equally. If he's as middle of the road as the few glimpses
>of his views we've had yet, he's effectively an equal threat to
>both.
>
I am well aware of what it is right now. However, a year ago, Bush had
90% approval ratings and nobody would predict he would slide as far as he
has. My feeling for events is that he is more popular than the polls show,
all things considered. When you go into the ballot booth, you may not vote
the way the polls say you will (hint: you have a mind of your own).
>>Negative ads will
>>be successful against Arlen Spector in Pennsylvania and he will lose
>>(the "villain" in the Anita Hill hearings will work well).
>
>I'm certainly keeping my fingers crossed. :-)
>
This should put to rest any claim that my predictions are anything more than
HOPEs. If I were blind to reality, I'd be saying Spector would win big, too.
I actually like Spector, but he blew it in the Anita Hill hearings. That's
the facts as I see 'em. If I lived in PA, I'd vote FOR Spector.
>>He will only refer to
>>Perot once in a while, but will otherwise ignore him. This will be another
>>key to his victory.
>
>That's probably the best way to fight Perot. Perot is a
>successful because he's captured the American people's attention.
>The less attention he gets the better, as far as Bush and Clinton
>are concerned.
>
Perot, IMO, is sucessful because Bush is too far left of center to make
Reagan Republicans happy, and he is too far to the right of LEFT to make
middle-of-the-road democrats happy. You can't please all the people all the
time :) The Democratic Party has some really potent presidential-caliber
people, but they don't win in the primaries. The last great democrat to
run was Teddy in 1980. Before that, it was McGovern in '68. If the democrats
would run Teddy, Mitchell, Gephardt, Foley, Jimmy Carter (even :), and
McGovern at the same time through the primiaries, we the people might actually
notice. But what we got was a sixpack of losers. Who did the Republican
party really run this year - Buchanon vs. Bush? Compare that with 1988 when
you had VP Bush, Kemp, Dole*Dole, and other strong candidates. Compare that
with Mike Dukakis vs. Gore, Gephardt, and other stronger candidates. And
where's Lloyd Bentsen? Given NO choice in the election, people are looking
hard for other choices. In the end, given NO choice besides Bush, people
will vote Bush.
>>The good news is that the incoming congress will have a mandate/agenda.
>>The last time we elected many new congressmen was after watergate - the
>>mandate then was to control the executive branch. After 20 years, the
>>agenda needs to be changed. The new agenda is to end the gridlock and
>>get things done. This actually turns out to be a boon for the country
>
>The best way to end gridlock is to get the Executive and Legislative
>branches controlled by the same party. People like to blame Congress
>alone for gridlock, and the fault is their, but Bush reguarly submits
>bills he knows full well can't get passed.
>
So far, Bush has submitted what he considers the correct bills. And his
approach towards congress was one of compromise and getting things done.
In my view, his worst compromise was the 1990 budget agreement/tax hike.
The last bill he submitted was one to spend $1 Billion on the inner-cities,
particularly Chicago (water main burst) and Los Angeles (riots). The most
important bill he submitted recently was his 7-point economic growth package
he explained in his State of the Union speech. Congress amended the package
to remove one of the 7 provisions (Capital Gains Tax Reduction) and added
a new "soak-the-rich" tax increase. As the bill went through congress,
Bush noted the addition of the "soak-the-rich" tax and announced, well ahead
of time, that he would veto the bill in the butchered form. So congress
actually _could_ have done something useful by voting on the 6 provisions
everybody agreed on. If you want to make a "soak-the-rich" tax, go for it -
you can advocate these kinds of things in free america. But let it stand on
its own merit - let's see it get a majority of votes in congress and survive
a veto overide. Or the line-item veto would have worked perfectly in this
case. In this case, the pork-barrel bill got vetoed and didn't even get
a majority of votes when brought up for veto overide. Why should the votes
change from supporting the bill? People aren't voting their conscience!
>Lots of the "change" candidates are running on a platform
>of "we won't bounce checks, we won't sell drugs in the Post
>Office, etc." That's good, but it's not real substantive change.
>
The ones who will be sucessful will be those who have a key issue
to extoll. When Spector loses, it won't be because he bounced checks :)
>>The effect of the election on the democratic party will be severe. By
>>1996, if Bush and congress do anything over the next 4 years, and they
>>will, Dan Quayle will be a viable presidential candidate. Bill Bradley
>>will be the democratic presidential nominee in 1996, and he may be able
>>to save the party.
>>
>
>As a Democrat, I know how Republicans must have felt around 1975.
>It doesn't look good for the party right now. Like I heard
>Dave Barry say, "After years of coming in second, the Democrats
>finally have a candidate who may very well come in third."
>Bill Clinton showed promise, looking like an electable candidate,
>until he started to make an ass of himself. I'm hoping for
>Tsongas or Gore myself.
>
Ford (or any Republican) had ZERO chance to win the 1976 election. These
4 years were doom for the party (12 years so far, 4 more coming).
>>Feel free to post your own predictions, but only mine
>>are right :):):)
>
>No, MINE are right.
>
>My prediction: Bush and Perot get most of the states, but Clinton
>carries enough to thror the elecion into the House. There are
>enough Congressspeople with guts to put whoever carries the popular
>vote nationwide in, and the election goes to Perot, in a squeaker.
>
I say it would be most embarassing if Clinton fails to win Arkansas.
It would not be so if Bush loses in Texas. I don't see Perot gaining
more than a few states, as I predicted. I do see those states as being
biggies (Texas, California, to name 2 possibilities).
We as citizens do NOT want to see congress choose our next president. If
Bush gets 40%, Perot 40%, and Clinton 20%, then Clinton, or Gephardt, or
Bradley, or Foley, or Mitchell stand much more of a chance to win than
Perot would.
We'll see whose predictions are right :)
Alex S. Crain
>As I stated, I believe Bush will not do much about Perot. Perot will self-
>destruct on his own. And I admire Perot as much as anyone can, so don't
>consider me a Perot-hater (there's that word: hate, again :) Clinton
>certainly can NOT run on the issues and look legitimate. His own record
>as governor of Arkansas won't stand up too well.
I used to belive this, but I'm changing my mind. I would guess that
Perot will be a contender to the end. He understands media, and he understands
politics, and thats really all you need to be president. He's slipping in
the polls, but so are Bush and Clinton, it's just a natural ebb in the ratings.
As for Clintons chances, I won't put money on his winning, but I don't think
he'll flame out either, which means that, in this race anyway, he's still a
contender.
>so - that makes my scenario look much more realistic. By the way, today,
>it was announced on network news that Perot has spent money investigating,
>or in other words digging for dirt, Bush's past. The news didn't say that
>he found anything, but that he did look into many things. It _used_ to be
>(before Watergate) an EVIL thing to do - let's see how the polls react! If
>it is an indication of how he intends to run the country, by blackmail, he
>won't stand a chance.
I don't think that this will hurt him at all. The dirty tricks of
the last couple of campaigns were all well publicised, its even fasionable
for a campaign stratagist to brag about how they slimed the other guy after
the race. Everybody expects these kind of tactics, now.
>I am well aware of what it is right now. However, a year ago, Bush had
>90% approval ratings and nobody would predict he would slide as far as he
>has. My feeling for events is that he is more popular than the polls show,
>all things considered. When you go into the ballot booth, you may not vote
>the way the polls say you will (hint: you have a mind of your own).
Yea, but he only had 90% approval for a few weeks, and it was a
direct result of the gulf war. Remember, before the war, when his ratings
were in the teens for a while?
This one won't be over until that fat lady sits down and they
bring the lights up, and even then we may get an encore.
--
Anybody who agrees with me deserves what they get.
Alex Crain
UMBC Academic Computing Services
John Wilkes
>
> Right now, it seems that Perot is going to hurt both Clinton and
> Bush equally. If he's as middle of the road as the few glimpses
> of his views we've had yet, he's effectively an equal threat to
> both.
Not according to the latest Field poll, as reported in the San Jose
Mecury News. Mervyn Field of the Field Institute counted *electoral*
votes instead of popular votes - remember: it's the electoral college
that actually selects the President, not the popular vote. Most states
use a winner-take-all system, i.e., the winner of any given state's
Presidential popular vote gets *all* of that state's electoral votes.
(I think this is bogus, but that's a different topic.)
According to the Field poll, Perot is only 37 electoral votes shy of
winning the whole thing, without throwing the election to the House.
The way they counted was that any state that has one candidate 5 or
more points ahead was given that state. Those states in which no
candidate is 5 or more points ahead in the polls is called a toss-up.
Field's poll has Clinton winning only in his home state of Arkansas and
the District of Columbia. Perot wins California, Texas, and most of the
western states. Bush takes the south, New York, Pennsylvania, and a
handful of others.
John Wilkes <wil...@apple.com>
Danny Griffin
>Be prepared to hear George Bush campaign against congress, continuously
>until the election. It will be very successful. He will only refer to
>Perot once in a while, but will otherwise ignore him. This will be another
>key to his victory.
It works for IBM and Apple. They continually ignore the Amiga. (Subliminal,
ubiquitous checkmark hidden in message).
--
Dan Griffin Advanced Business Systems, Inc.
gri...@egr.msu.edu Medical and Dental Practice Management
517/349-0386 517/349-8057
John Switzer
>my...@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
>
>>Be prepared to hear George Bush campaign against congress, continuously
>>until the election. It will be very successful. He will only refer to
>>Perot once in a while, but will otherwise ignore him. This will be another
>>key to his victory.
>
>It works for IBM and Apple. They continually ignore the Amiga. (Subliminal,
>ubiquitous checkmark hidden in message).
Yeah, but everybody ignores the Amiga. The local software stores have
cleared out their Amiga stock weeks ago. In fact, even the Nintendo-type
games have more shelf space than Mac stuff. This is great for me since
I'm an IBM fan, but still I would like to see more competition than this -
keeps the prices down, don't you know.
--
John Switzer | "They take you for a ride, run out of gas
| Most of the time they're a pain
74076...@Compuserve.com | In the yeah, yeah."
j...@netcom.com | The Forester Sisters - "Men"
Nick Szabo
>[prediction]
>President George Bush is re-elected in a landslide. His presidential
>campaign will start after the conventions, and by August, his popularity
>rating will rise rapidly. He will receive between 45% and 50% of the
>popular vote and will win at least 40 states.
Question: Let's say the vote in a state goes as follows:
Bush 34%
Perot 33%
Clinton 33%
Does Bush get all the electoral votes for that state ("winner
take all"), or do they get divied up somehow? Does this answer
apply to all states or does it vary from state to state?
--
sz...@techbook.COM Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400, N81)
Nick Szabo
>My prediction: Bush and Perot get most of the states, but Clinton
>carries enough to thror the elecion into the House. There are
>enough Congressspeople with guts to put whoever carries the popular
>vote nationwide in, and the election goes to Perot, in a squeaker.
No way. Not in a million years. Barring a spectacular shift to a
Republican Congress, a thrown election is a shoo-in for Clinton.
Even if he only gets a miniscule fraction of the popular vote.
Why do you think Clinton has been wooing Congress? Because
Congress is popular? :-)
Jeffrey Alan Foust
>Question: Let's say the vote in a state goes as follows:
>
>Bush 34%
>Perot 33%
>Clinton 33%
>
>Does Bush get all the electoral votes for that state ("winner
>take all"), or do they get divied up somehow? Does this answer
>apply to all states or does it vary from state to state?
In most states electoral votes are awarded on a "winner take all" basis.
Thus, in the example above, Bush would win that state and all its electoral
votes. The only two states I know of that do not use the "winner take all"
rule are Maine and Nebraska. In these states each candidiate gets an
electoral vote for each Congressional district he wins. The remaining two
electoral votes are then awarded to the candidatewho carries the popular
vote in the state as a whole (I think - I'm not entirely sure about that).
Reportedly several other states are considering using this format for
allocating electoral votes - I think Nebraska adopted this setup fairly
recently, as I don't remember it being discussed back home (metropolitan
Omaha) in 1988 or earlier elections.
--
Jeff Foust Senior, Geophysics/Planetary Science, Caltech
jaf...@cco.caltech.edu je...@scn1.jpl.nasa.gov
"What would *you* call the creation of the universe?" - Hobbes
"The Horrendous Space KABLOOIE!" - Calvin (Calvin & Hobbes, 21 June 1992)
Scott Cromar
distribution of its electoral college votes. In the proposed system,
the plurality winner in each congressional district would get the
electoral college vote, and the remaining two votes would go to the
statewide winner.
--Scott
Mike Schwartz
>
>>Be prepared to hear George Bush campaign against congress, continuously
>>until the election. It will be very successful. He will only refer to
>>Perot once in a while, but will otherwise ignore him. This will be another
>>key to his victory.
>
>It works for IBM and Apple. They continually ignore the Amiga. (Subliminal,
>ubiquitous checkmark hidden in message).
>
It would also be in Bush's best interests to make Congress out to be the
heavy and not defocus that WINNING strategy. Perot's popularity rose and
will continue to fall without Bush doing much of anything. And he ends
up looking like a good guy for not slamming his opponents.
Mike Schwartz
With all the anti-Bush sentiment there "supposedly" is, without Perot,
Clinton would be getting all that support. With Perot in the race,
Clinton gets a handful of electoral votes :) And my prediction is that
Clinton won't even get Arkansas :)
Mike Schwartz
>
>>[prediction]
>>President George Bush is re-elected in a landslide. His presidential
>>campaign will start after the conventions, and by August, his popularity
>>rating will rise rapidly. He will receive between 45% and 50% of the
>>popular vote and will win at least 40 states.
>
>Question: Let's say the vote in a state goes as follows:
>
>Bush 34%
>Perot 33%
>Clinton 33%
>
>Does Bush get all the electoral votes for that state ("winner
>take all"), or do they get divied up somehow? Does this answer
>apply to all states or does it vary from state to state?
>
Yes, Bush gets all the votes. It can happen that in many states it is:
Perot 100%
and Perot wins just those states, gets most of the quantity of the vote,
overall (popular vote), and loses because of not enough electoral votes.
The figures you presented remind me of the 1984 mayoral elections in
Chicago. Jane Byrne, Richard Daley Jr. (current mayor), and Harold
Washington split the vote 32% Washington, 31% for the other two, each.
Washington got the job even though 2/3 of the people voted against him.
Mike Schwartz
>In article <mykes...@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> my...@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
>
>>As I stated, I believe Bush will not do much about Perot. Perot will self-
>>destruct on his own. And I admire Perot as much as anyone can, so don't
>>consider me a Perot-hater (there's that word: hate, again :) Clinton
>>certainly can NOT run on the issues and look legitimate. His own record
>>as governor of Arkansas won't stand up too well.
>
> I used to belive this, but I'm changing my mind. I would guess that
>Perot will be a contender to the end. He understands media, and he understands
>politics, and thats really all you need to be president. He's slipping in
>the polls, but so are Bush and Clinton, it's just a natural ebb in the ratings.
>As for Clintons chances, I won't put money on his winning, but I don't think
>he'll flame out either, which means that, in this race anyway, he's still a
>contender.
>
I made my predictions fully aware that since 1900, the best ANY third party
candidate has ever done in the elections is 12%. When I said Perot would
get 30%, that's almost triple the vote that Teddy Roosevelt got :)
>
>>so - that makes my scenario look much more realistic. By the way, today,
>>it was announced on network news that Perot has spent money investigating,
>>or in other words digging for dirt, Bush's past. The news didn't say that
>>he found anything, but that he did look into many things. It _used_ to be
>>(before Watergate) an EVIL thing to do - let's see how the polls react! If
>>it is an indication of how he intends to run the country, by blackmail, he
>>won't stand a chance.
>
> I don't think that this will hurt him at all. The dirty tricks of
>the last couple of campaigns were all well publicised, its even fasionable
>for a campaign stratagist to brag about how they slimed the other guy after
>the race. Everybody expects these kind of tactics, now.
>
It only helps to solidify Perot's budding negative image. People wonder
what he will do as president (since he hasn't been specific) and his actions
are all you can judge by... And he has already lost in the polls because
of it (Bush is now #1, Perot #2, Clinton #3).
>>I am well aware of what it is right now. However, a year ago, Bush had
>>90% approval ratings and nobody would predict he would slide as far as he
>>has. My feeling for events is that he is more popular than the polls show,
>>all things considered. When you go into the ballot booth, you may not vote
>>the way the polls say you will (hint: you have a mind of your own).
>
> Yea, but he only had 90% approval for a few weeks, and it was a
>direct result of the gulf war. Remember, before the war, when his ratings
>were in the teens for a while?
>
No, I don't. I remember Reagan leaving office with 80%+ approval ratings
and Bush never dropping below that. The 90%+ was an all-time high for
any president...
> This one won't be over until that fat lady sits down and they
>bring the lights up, and even then we may get an encore.
>
Even in a close popular vote, you can have a landslide winner. Keep that
in mind...