Fivethirtyeight.com has this interesting analysis of how minor party and independent presidential candidates who got at least 2% of the vote, for the period 1968 through 2000, affected the final outcome. The story’s title leads one to think it is just another story about Donald Trump, but it is more than that.
The story properly shows that Ross Perot’s 1992 run did not affect the Democratic-Republican ratio at all. This is a useful reference to rebut the constant claim that Perot in 1992 caused Clinton to win. The story is also very interesting for its 1968 data.
Lamely written article. Not a single mention of the electoral college.
Statement that Trump getting 5% would pull evenly from H. Clinton and J. Bush?! Nader barely moved the needle?!
Some sort of occult mind reading of the Perot voters in 1992 about their possible second choice of Bush II or Clinton ???
—
Abolish the super timebomb Electoral College.
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
Exit polls not occult mind reading. 38% each would have voted for Bush and Clinton, the rest not voted or another 3rd party. And while Perot dropped out for a few months Clinton’s poll numbers went up, not down. The economy sucked and Bush’s poll numbers were in the toilet.
“Statement that Trump getting 5% would pull evenly from H. Clinton and J. Bush?!”
May well be true. He would not necessarily position himself in a general election in the same way as he would for the primary, and he has many views that don’t line up with Republicans.
“Nader barely moved the needle?!”
He may have actually helped Gore. For one thing, a chunk of Nader’s vote came from Arab-Americans who usually vote Republican, and for another, Nader got a lot of people to register who supported him initially (and wouldn’t have voted at all otherwise) but ended up voting for Gore because the election was so close and they faced a lot of pressure to not let Bush win.
Overall Perot was definitely a wash as far as D/R divides, Nader possibly, and Trump may be too.