🚀 go-pugleaf

>>>>> "Steve" == Steve Manifold <ezab065@hpcf.cc.utexas.edu> writes:
In article <3964dr$5af@spica.cc.utexas.edu> ezab065@hpcf.cc.utexas.edu (Steve Manifold) writes:


    Steve> In article <ETTARE.94Oct29182351@balkans.umich.edu>,
    >>  I also don't understand why being opposed to Clinton is a
    >> qualification for Governor of Texas -- a point GWB made in his
    >> closing remarks at the debate. Besides, Clinton won the
    >> presidency *without* carrying Texas (the first candidate to do
    >> so BTW), so Clinton can't do any *worse* in Texas.
    >> 



    Steve> You could say that Clinton won the presidency without even
    Steve> carrying the nation.

True, but that's the nature (and original intent, BTW) of the U.S.
electoral system. You can always twist the differences between the
popular and elctoral votes. For example, Reagan's HUGE electoral
victory margin in 1984 did not correspond to an equally large victory
margin in the popular vote. Nevertheless, Reagan claimed it was an
overwhelming mandate for his policies. Similarly, Rush Limbaugh likes
to argue (albeit incorrectly) that changing only 4,000 votes in
Chicago in 1960 would have elected Nixon (and, I assume, avoided all
of the welfare programs of the 60's).







--

George J. Loegel
Computer Science Engineering Department
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI
ettare@dip.eecs.umich.edu