Posted by jiml60 on 8/25/2011 2:26:00 PM (view original):
Posted by swamphawk22 on 8/24/2011 8:38:00 PM (view original):
Really...
Wallace, Anderson and Perot want to talk to you about it.
Really? What's your definition of strong then?
In 1968, Wallace gained 13.5% of the popular vote and won one state (the only 3rd party candidate since 1948 to achieve that)
In 1980, Anderson gained 6.6% of the popular vote, no electoral votes.
In 1992, Perot made a strong showing in the popular vote with 18.9% but did not win any states.
In 1996, Perot ran again and dropped to 8%, no electoral votes.
In 2000, Nader only won 2.7% of the popular vote.
None of the above were able to sustain their modest showings 4 years later.
That is my definition of strong. Enough that a major candidate would get less than 44%.
Anderson made it a landslide for Reagan, Wallace made it close for Humphrey, Perot took votes from both sides allowing people to say that Clinton never got 50%.
I am not implying any of them would win, but my 52-44% might not work if someone got even 6.6%.