>On Sat, 27 Nov 1999, Nathan Newman wrote:
> > The fact that Clinton got 49% of the vote rather than the 56-58% he
> > would probably have received cut his coattails quite a bit.
>Anti-Clintonites usually wield a breakdown saying Willie got 43% of the
>vote. Is that oft-repeated nonsense, or am I misremembering? The idea of
>a minority president has much less bite if it was 49%.
Clinton got 43% in '92, 49% in '96.