and every exit poll showed the Reform Party voters split
>between Clinton and Bush as their second choice, so Perot made no difference
>on the election as far as outcome.
Yet the specter of Perot may have made it easier for the Democrats to turn out the vote? Surprised to learn though that Clinton was leading before Perot got back in the race. But how far behind was Clinton before Perot got in the race the first time? Really have no memory of what transpired.
And I can't really think of any that threw the election one
>way or the other, except possibly Wallace in 1968 (since most of his voters
>would have gone with Humphrey) but I'd have to recheck the numbers.
Well, why can't Buchanan play a similar role this time. Of course Fulani may help him ward off charges of racism as he plays anti immigrant populism to the hilt to win disaffected Democrats. She certainly isn't there to attract black voters.
>In fact, since I have a relatively high faith in the strategic intelligence
>of voters,
I guess Coke is the better product. Chalk it up to voter intelligence.
Yours, Rakesh