Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: If the Democratic Party went Populist would Centrists Flee? [View all]Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)118. So now you're changing your argument
since your last post about Perot was a lie.
Now, lets briefly consider the 1992 exit poll data and the actual composition of the Perot vote. According to the exit poll data, 38% of the Perot voters said they would have voted for Clinton in a two way race, 38% would have voted for Bush, 24% would not have voted. Perot won 30% of independents, 17% of Republicans, and 13% of Democrats. Put another way, of his 19% popular vote share, 8 percentage points came from independents, 6 from Republicans, and 5 from Democrats. Fully 53% of Perots vote came from self-defined moderates, 27% from conservatives and 20% from liberals; so about 10 points of his 19% came from self-described moderates, with 5 points coming from conservatives and 4 points from liberals. We also know from the exit polls that the Perot voters were angrier at the political system than supporters of the other candidates. Do these Perot supporters really look like voters that would have gone heavily to incumbent Bush in a two-candidate race?
It is just possible that Perot cost Bush a state here or there where Clinton squeezed out a very narrow plurality (Colorado, Montana, Ohio and Georgia come to mind as possibilities), but there is no empirical evidence that documents this that I am aware of. Even if true for all four states (a very unlikely probability), it merely reduces Clintons electoral vote majority from a near landslide to very comfortable.
http://www.pollingreport.com/hibbitts1202.htm
It is just possible that Perot cost Bush a state here or there where Clinton squeezed out a very narrow plurality (Colorado, Montana, Ohio and Georgia come to mind as possibilities), but there is no empirical evidence that documents this that I am aware of. Even if true for all four states (a very unlikely probability), it merely reduces Clintons electoral vote majority from a near landslide to very comfortable.
http://www.pollingreport.com/hibbitts1202.htm
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
148 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
One wonders, doesn't one. We can't be allowed one lousy night to enjoy Democratic victories...
Hekate
Nov 2017
#82
come on. Our platform was the most progressive after the primary, not before. And she did not.
JCanete
Nov 2017
#129
actually any of those. I'm telling you what I saw every time I turned her on the TV or pulled a
JCanete
Nov 2017
#134
okay, YES, based upon the parameters I set, this is absolutely an example of Clinton talking about
JCanete
Nov 2017
#143
Not true, because I don't have an agenda here. I'd rather fully understand these issues myself.
JCanete
Nov 2017
#148
Females, immigrants, DACA, minorities, handicapped, and LGBT have bigger issues
Fresh_Start
Nov 2017
#23
Bernie was campaigning for civil rights before most of the party was even born.
Kentonio
Nov 2017
#97
any one who calls them selves NOT A FRICKEN CONSERVATIVE best support democrats no matter
beachbum bob
Nov 2017
#12
"where the middle class, workers and poor are looked after" That would be the Democratic Party.
SandyZ
Nov 2017
#78
Imo, it is obvious the Dems are on the middle class and poor, side. Small business,
SandyZ
Nov 2017
#89
I don't dislike corporations. I dislike corporations that ignore the public good.
DemocratSinceBirth
Nov 2017
#49
We are what we are...not going anything... Tonight is about victory...no more
Demsrule86
Nov 2017
#58
The fact you put billionaires in the same list as Jews, Blacks and Gays is deeply troubling
Kentonio
Nov 2017
#99
Calling himself a populist, or the media calling him one, doesn't make it so.
Garrett78
Nov 2017
#73
The Democratic Party is populist and centrist, and we are welcoming everyone to join us.
L. Coyote
Nov 2017
#70
Garbage argument, Billsmile. "So let's have at it"? Come back and say this again...
Hekate
Nov 2017
#87
Populism isn't a political philosophy. There have been both Dem and repug populists.
brush
Nov 2017
#94
First of all, WTF is "populism?" It seems to be a word to describe something extremely unpopular.
lagomorph777
Nov 2017
#126
Flamebait. God forbid we should enjoy our victories, even for a full day. (nt)
Paladin
Nov 2017
#133
A few that we don't need anyway would leave. You know the type, they tell us we can't
brewens
Nov 2017
#136