Look out, Jeb!'s getting snippy.

[Octafish]

40. Rachel Maddow? No fooling?

She's an expert. I don't know about you, randys1, but I was happy Bill Clinton got elected. He wasn't elected by a majority, but a plurality was good enough back then.

Analysis: Perot's vote totals in themselves likely did not cause Clinton to win. Even if all of these states had shifted to Bush and none of Bushís victories had been reversed (as seems plausible, in fact, as Bush won by less than 5% only in states that a Republican in a close election could expect to carry, particularly before some of the partisan shifts that took place later in the 1990s ñ Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, South Dakota and Virginia), Clinton still would have won the electoral college vote by 281 to 257. But such a result obviously would have made the race a good deal closer.

SOURCE w/plenty of empirical data that Rachel Maddow level minds can understand: http://archive.fairvote.org/plurality/perot.htm

Gosh. I called him, "President Clinton" for eight years and supported him as a citizen and as a Democrat. My disagreements with Bill have more to do with matters where he acted more like a Republican, like restructuring welfare as we knew it to repealing Glass-Steagal. He's still demonstrating Buy Partisanship at UBS.