🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov4.174420.9483@pbhya.PacBell.COM> mspayer@PacBell.COM (Mike Payer) writes:
>When you combine the votes for Bush and Perot 57% of the American people
>voted against Bill Clinton.

Just because you didn't vote FOR a candidate, you cannot conclude
that you voted against him.  The polls I have read indicate that
Perot voters were pretty evenly split over who they would have
voted for if Perot wasn't in the race.  So, perhaps half of the
Perot voters were really voting against Clinton.  I didn't vote
FOR Clinton, but the only candidate I voted AGAINST was George
Bush.  It isn't nearly as simple as adding up the votes FOR and
assuming the rest are against.

>Question has any other President since, say FDR, ever won the Presidency 
>when more than 50% of the electorate voted against him?

Nixon won in '68 with less than 50% of the electorate.  Don't
remember the exact figures, but George Wallace got more than 10%
of the vote and the election was quite close.  That year, I think
that most of those Wallace voters would have probably stayed home
if Wallace hadn't run.

>It would seem to me that Mr Clinton will have a problem in that he does
>not come to Washington with a mandate to govern. ( comments )

In many ways, his "mandate" is greater than Bush's was.  He is coming
to Washington with a Congress which is controlled by the Democrats.
They even have enough votes to stop filibusters in the Senate.  For
the first few months, I would think that Clinton will be able to have
just about any legislation he wants.

Guido