home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:9491 alt.politics.bush:13792 alt.politics.clinton:16910 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8413 alt.politics.elections:23534
- Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections
- Path: sparky!uunet!Cadence.COM!phz
- From: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
- Subject: Re: Clinton wins in LANDSLIDE - NOT!!
- Message-ID: <1992Nov11.221927.681@Cadence.COM>
- Sender: usenet@Cadence.COM (Usenet News)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: cds709.cadence.com
- Organization: Cadence Design Systems
- References: <1992Nov4.204848.14837@fid.morgan.com>
- Distribution: usa
- Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 22:19:27 GMT
- Lines: 29
-
- In article <1992Nov4.204848.14837@fid.morgan.com> joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
- >
- >Bill Clinton did not win in a landslide at all....he won a simple
- >plurality, i.e. more votes than anyone else. In fact, some 57-58%
- >of all voters voted for someone OTHER than Bill Clinton, i.e.
- >a BIG majority of voters opted for someone other than Bill Clinton.
-
- Well -- you could look at it another way: some 62% of all voters voted for
- someone OTHER than George "Herbert Hoover" Bush.
-
- Yes, he won a popular plurality (even if it was an electoral landslide), not
- a majority.
-
- >Secondly...The democrats, on balance, lost ground in Congress.
-
- Huh? I though that the Dems GAINED ground in Congress. Didn't they reach
- 60 members in the Senate -- enough to break a Republican filibuster? I call
- that quite a significant gain.
-
- I undertand that the Dems DID lose in STATE assemblies, though, for the most
- part.
-
- -Pete Zakel
- (phz@cadence.com or ..!uunet!cadence!phz)
-
- Weinberg's Second Law:
- If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs,
- then the first woodpecker that came along would destroy
- civilization.
-