1996 Presidential Elections - Votes are IN!

D

Dennis

Staff Emeritus
1996 Presidential Election
(The New York Times Almanac for 1999, pg. 113)

Party...............Candidate........Popular Vote........%..Electoral Vote

Democrat..........Clinton/Gore......47,402,357.......49.24.........379

Republican.........Dole/Kemp........39,198,755.......40.71..........159

Reform..............Perot/Choate......8,085,402........8.40

Green................Ralph Nader..........684,902........0.71

Libertarian..........Harry Browne........485,798........0.50

U.S.Taxpayers.....Howard Phillips......184,658........0.19

Natural Law.........John Hagelin.........113,668........0.12

Workers World......Monica Moorehead..29,083........0.03

Peace & Freedom..Marsha Feinland.....25,332.........0.03

Independent.........Charles Collins........8,941..........0.01

Socialist Workers...James Harris...........8,476..........0.01

Write ins and
“none of the above”.........................49,851..........0.05
--------------------------------------------------------
Total vote.................................96,277,223

Clinton plurality............................8,203.602
============================================

1) Perot did not “cost” Dole the election. Adding together the votes
for Dole and Perot do NOT equal or exceed the votes cast for Clinton.

2) Adding all third party votes to the Republican votes would give the
Republicans the majority, but just as some Republican votes were a
vote “against” the Democrats, many of the third party votes were
“against” the Republicans AND Democrats.

3) Candidates do not “cost” each other elections.

CANDIDATES WIN OR LOSE VOTES.

[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited July 20, 1999).]
 
Dennis, this is a dandy! With your permission, I'll add this table to my own webpage, attributed to you, of course(first name only ;)).

Did the original happen to mention how many registered voters there were in '96?

------------------

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and thus clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -- H.L. Mencken
 
Do you have the numbers for the '92 election? I've always heard it was *that* election that Perot tipped to the Democrats by wooing conservative voters to his party.
 
interesting numbers, but what about the "92" election,,,you know the one that got clinton elected to office. also if you add the libertarians vote to that perot vote dole would have won the popular vote, unfortunately the electorial vote is what counts, and it is also unfortunate that the rockefeller republicans decided it was doles' turn despite his unpopularity with the people.........fubsy.
 
Sorry, fubsy, but not all who vote Libertarian would have voted Republican. Same thing for the Reform vote, not all are Repub voters. Further, you could conceivably add the socialists, greens and worker's party votes to the Dems.

Even if all these independent votes were "stolen" from the Republocrats, it's their own fault. If anyone was abandoned, it was the voters, not the GOP. They were handed the Congress in '94, had a chance to s**t can the Dems, and blew it. Don't be surprised when voters remember, and move on.

------------------
"The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of any of their number is self-protection."
John Stuart Mill
 
1992 Presidential Election
(The New York Times Almanac for 1999, pg. 113)

Party...............Candidate........Popular Vote........%..Electoral Vote

Democrat..........Clinton/Gore......44,908,233.......42.95.........370

Republican.........Bush/Quayle......39,102,282.......37.40..........168

Reform..............Perot/Stockdale..19,721,433.......18.86

Other..........................................820,786........0.79
----------------------------------------------------------
Total vote..................................104,552,736
Clinton plurality...........................5,805,951
===========================================

Out of fairness, yes, the 1992 race was closer than the 1996 race.

Out of fairness, yes, IF even half the Perot votes had voted for Dole,
he would have won in a “landslide”.

So what would that mean to us? To gun owners? Not a darned thing!
The Republicans vote to delay a gun control bill and hold themselves
up as the saviour of gun rights! But they conspire and compromise
with the Democrats on gun bills EVERY SINGLE TIME!

I agree that for our cause, the Democrats are the Great Satan!
But the Republicans sure can NOT claim to be the second coming of
Christ!

Perot did not TAKE votes from Republicans!

The Republicans did not WIN the votes it needed, primarily because
the Republicans have become the “We agree” party to the Democrats!

You don’t vote AGAINST your enemies! You vote FOR your friends!
And the Republicans are NOT our friends!

It makes NO sense to vote for the first or the SECOND biggest gun
control party in America.

Until the Republicans become Republicans again, following their own
party platform and trying at least to pretend they are honest, I won’t
vote for them.

If you want to keep your gun rights, vote that way. If you want to
lose your gun rights, vote for EITHER major party.

And if one more person tells me that by NOT voting Republican I am
voting for the Democrats, you better have your e-mail address posted
or I will condemn you for a coward and fool right in public!
----------------------------------------

pbash & fubsy,
Here are your numbers.
-------
Ipecac,
Thanks, but not need to give me credit for these numbers. They are right out of the almanac. Should be the same, I'd think, for any other almanac.

Ouch! I was going to say you can get one for $2-$5 - then I saw this one cost $10.95 + tax! Grr. Accursed inflation. ;)

((CORRECTED THANKS TO FUBSY!))

[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited July 21, 1999).]
 
Maybe a more important question to ask is <strong>why</strong> do the Republicans compromise on gun votes with the Democrats? Some do it because they believe that gun control will work, but the vast majority of politicians behave the way they do out of regard for what they feel the issue will do in terms of votes.

What's playing right now is a contest between what happened in 1994, a <strong>proven</strong> vote by gun owners that decided an election and what the polls are saying may happen in 2000. Democrats and pro control groups are arguing that Columbine changed the national temperature on the gun control issue and that the majority of Americans who have favored more gun control for some time will now let this issue be more influential in their voting pattern. If things continue as they are now IMO that probably won't happen, but if there are more school shootings next school year (or some other major incident) it may well happen. The press is so primed now that any such incident will instantly become a national crusade against guns.

So Republicans see themselves as potentially vulnerable, it makes them nervous, and they think they can defuse the issue if they pass some kind of gun control. What they want to do is pass gun control that "we" (gun owners) will pass off as innocuous and that they can hold up in front of the American people and say "hey we did something, we care about this issue", if the problem raises its ugly head again.

They're in a vice on this issue, with us, a proven important ally, threatening to mutiny on one hand, and dire predictions of losses at the polls if a "gun incident" brings the issue back into the public consciousness on the other hand.

The Democrats love it!! They are squeezing for all thier worth. If they can force the Republicans to act and we abandon them for a third party or don't vote, they gain from those lost votes. If the Republicans don't act or produce what is perceived as minor changes the Democrats beat thier chests and scream "government by the NRA" blah blah, they use it as a campaign issue. It appears to them to be a win-win situation, and despite all their feigned compassion their are lots of Democrats who I would bet my life are praying for another major "gun incident" in the days to come.

So IMO the bottom line is this: Politicians will and do act according to their interests in getting elected. Parties even more so. Those who act *purely* on prinicple however honorable they may appear are mostly candidates only they never make it to office, or if they do they are quickly turned out. IOW politicians act this way <strong>BECAUSE IT WORKS!!!</strong>. This isn't going to change any time soon, we can accept it or live in fantasy land. Someday maybe Americans will learn to appreciate prinicpled leadership again but today the trend is in the opposite direction.

Our opposition's (gun contollers) strategy is to sway Americans public opinion. Woo the press and get them to take this up as "their issue". Get various organizations who major thrust is not gun control to throw their weight behind the issue, and with the rise of Bill Clinton to get a major political party to make gun control part of their platform. Also much of the legislation passed (no guns if you have a violent misdemenor ect) is designed at least in part to reduce the number of gun owners in the US and thus the number of votes with a stake in maintaining gun rights. What we are seeing now is the fruits of this long-term strategy. A lot of effort and a lot of events have come together to produce the "tough spot" we find ourselves in now. Most of it has to do with our very limited ability to present our point of view in the "public debate", and IMO our inability to recruit allies instead of punishing foes.

In the long run if we can't formulate a coherent strategy for turning these larger issues around it really might not matter what party we ally ourselves with, we will be, like our brothers and sisters in Great Britain, such a minority that we can be stepped on and shoved aside with impugnity.

=rod=
 
Rod,
What you say makes sense so, just for a moment, let's accept it as reality.

IF Democrats want total gun control, and
IF Republicans must have "some" gun control, and
IF no third party stands a chance,
THEN gun control, registration, and confiscation are inevitable - it's only a matter of time.

The argument, "Vote for the Republicans just this once to kick out the Democrats and then vote third party to get what you want," is thereby totally discredited:
1) The Republicans will give us "some" gun control.
2) The Democrats will not "go away" - they ARE the other major party.
3) Third parties will still be considered impotent against the two major parties.
4) The same arguments will be employed at the following elections.

It's LOSE NOW or LOSE THEN.
-------

However, if the Republicans win, government will continue to salami-slice gun rights away until the U.S. is in the same shape as Australia.

Gun ownership will be demonized to the extent that anyone caught with a gun is a criminal by definition!

Gun ownership will decrease as gun owners die off and their children, as good subjects, turn in the guns to be destroyed.
-------

If a proper third party is elected, gun rights will be restored. However, this is NOT likely because we refuse to unite:
- We want to vote AGAINST something horrible by voting FOR something bad. To me this is unAmerican and cowardly rather than realistic.
- We can't even get a few hundred people behind FOUP - a small step of expressing our view in public. A good idea from the beginning but, again, too many people are too cowardly to back up their views in public and with $50.

-----
The Republicans, by their actions, are much closer to the Democrats than to the Republican platform OR the American people. Therefore, the Republicans have little chance, as the "me too" party, of winning enough of the third party vote to beat the Democrats.

Plus, any vote for the Republicans still is a vote for gun control. Why should prisoners unite behind the hangman rather than Kevorkian?
------

If the Democrats win, as I believe is inevitable, but there is a large third party vote, it will be clear that:
- The Democrats do NOT have a majority, and
- Many Americans are AGAINST the Republocrat oligarchy.

Also, I understand the Democrats probably are foolish enough to push their gun control, registration, and confiscation scheme. However,
1) If Democrats only salami-slice away our rights, we won't be much worse off than with the Republicans.
2) If Democrats push for total registration and/or confiscation, then maybe, just maybe, the American public will see where totalitarianism leads and will revolt at the ballot box adequately restore America to American ideals.
----------------------

Okay, folks. I've donned my ankle-length helmet! :D

Point out where I am wrong. Point out what we should do right now to prevent the takeover of our way of life.

Show me and convince me and I WILL change my opinions. But don't resort to religious or sexual arguments or I'll start quoting Benton Quest! :D
 
But my point is not necessarily to dictate who should align themselves with what party. For those who feel a great affinity for the Libertarian party and believe that adherance to principal outweighs practical outcome (at this time anyway), I think you should follow them by all means. For those who feel that it is more important to be a player in a party that has a chance to produce a winning candidate then Republican is probably a better way to go.

I don't think it is at all a foregone conclusion that the Democrats will win the Presidency in 2000. I think Al Gore is a weak candidate and will have to rely heavily on support from Clinton to have a chance. I think the Democrats have gotten caught up in the "next in line for the job" line of thinking, the same kind of thing that produced the disasterous Dole candidacy in 96 for the Republicans.

The Democrats have filled themselves up with thier own delusions: -The failed impeachment hearings will doom the Republicans in 2000. -Columbine will drive suburban women to vote for Democrats. Neither is likely to come to pass IMO.

So what about another scenario: We say screw the Republicans and they win anyway. How important do we look to them then? The minority of Republicans who are saying the party should divorce itself from the NRA, will they have a greater voice or a lesser one?

In a Democracy saying that only the pure idealogy, the pure victory matters and any type of compromise is a loss of the same magnitude is not an idea that IMO is going to go very far.

The reason that all the "Salami slicing" is going on is because we are losing the war for the minds of the American public. That is what is driving the politics.

If I were to describe this event in terms of a battle: Our enemy is engaged in war of attrition, building its forces as ours diminish. This attrition is puctuated by vigorous probes for weakness followed by occupation of territory when weakness is found. We on the other hand are in a purely defensive mode. With the sole exception of concealed carry legislation we react to our opponent's initiatives. We constantly face the agonizing decision of whether to commit our forces to a particular fight or conserve our strength for a more important battle.

Deciding which political party to support is so far down this chain of events it only has nominal importance. We need to build a powerful coalition. Identify areas of our opponents weakness and exploit them. We need to bring others into our camp. We need to have representatives of our viewpoint in all political parties. We need corporate support, we need to attract the sympathy of other organizations not directly concerned with gun control, we need to cause the media to question the validity of gun control a present our viewpoint. We need to seize the initiative and force our opponents to react to us.

When this happens the politics will follow. Affecting politics involves moving public opinion. Succesful politicians can never move too far from public opinion. Our opponents recognize this implicitly, we IMO are ignoring it.

=rod=
 
Dennis,
great research, tks and I mean it too.....
but wasnt the elections of "92" bush/quayle not dole and whoever......?, probably jsut a typo....
....one thing i would consider is how many didnt vote, out of principle in either the '92', 94, or 96 election each have different dynamics involved and can not reasonably be assumed to be necessarily the same events at each turn.........fubsy.
 
dennis,
Maybe you could answer something that ive posed as a question on different replies and have not had a libertarian answer,....if the libertarian president gets elected (there are not enuf canidates for majority party in congress),.....how will he get his views accross through congress? How is that going to happen?, is he going to take a page from clinton and rule by executive order?, isnt that the same thing we decry about clinton avoiding the checks and balances the country was set up to operate under?....tks fubsy.
 
Fubsy,

I thought I'd answered that question in the other thread.

Suppose Harry Browne is elected. One of his declared priorities (from his 1996 LP nomination acceptance speech) is to eliminate ALL unconstitutional laws.

Now, suppose you're a congresscritter. Are you going to defy a president who wants to run the country according to our defining document? Don't you think you'd be run out of DC on a proverbial rail?

If Browne is elected, we'll see who really has the country's interests at heart. Simply, the weasels who fail to back him will show their true elitist colors.

------------------
Ignorance is takin' over,
We gotta take the power back.
--Rage Against The Machine
 
Dennis, What was the percentage of registered voters actually voting in the "96 election if you have the figure handy?

I had heard that it was only something like 29%. If that's true we truly have the few deciding for the many.
 
Rod,
Interesting scenario - Reps beating Dems.
It seems we're screwed:
Dems = quick loss of gun ownership.
Reps = slow loss of gun ownership.
Reps win = They don't need us.
Reps lose = They can't rely upon us.
(Only good aspect here is it could drive a man to drink! ;) )
-----
You comment, "The reason that all the 'Salami slicing' is going on is because we are losing the war for the minds of the American public. That is what is driving the politics."

I agree with that and with the remainder of your post 100%!

Those who beg for unity (I'm one of them) are whistling in the wind. We apparently do not believe in our own cause.

How many gun owners will turn in their guns when so directed? 50%? 75%? Higher?

We won't unite when it's peaceful to do so. I can't believe we'll unite when "the drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll."

It's not just "the last Cowboy's song," but the end of the American way of life. From the way we don't speak up, vote for our rights, or even support a small voice like FOUP, it is clear the tyrants already have won. It's only a matter of gradual implementation.

Eventually I guess I'll have to stand with Coinneach, Cornered Rat, and a few others.

But if MY daughters survive, they will know as will my grandchildren, that their family name will be scratched on the rock of freedom (from Red Dawn).

Dispirited Grump
 
Fubsy,
Thanks for catching the error. I also corrected a couple other errors. Danged print is so small in the Almanac it's hard for me to read! Thanks again.

Voting numbers and percentages for 1992 & 1996 elections.
(The New York Times Almanac for 1999, pg. 115)

..............................1992............1996

Of Voting Age..........189,529,000..196,511,000
% Voting..................55.09%.......49.08%

Registered Voters...133,821,178..146,211,960
% Voting.................78.01%.......65.85%

Total Voters(1)........104,405,155..96,456,345

1) Note the total voters does NOT equal the total votes for President. How come?
Could it be that some people voted locally but not for the Presidency?

[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited July 21, 1999).]
 
The worst thing that could happen with a Libertarian President is...nothing. He wants to cut unconstitutional agencies, congress objects. Congress wants to pass unconstitutional laws, he vetoes them. I don't know about you, but I think we have enough laws to last at least another 4 years. And no, he wouldn't use executive orders to make law, as Clinton and other recent presidents have, a Libertarian president would have actually read and comprehended the Constitution. If the worst criticism we can come up with is, "will he be as bad as the Demonpublicans?" then I dare say we're all ready to vote Libertarian.

Again, the Republicons have championed gun control since the early 70s. HCI was started by some of Nixon's CIA. Bush began the whole damn assault weapons import ban. BTW, the Waco raid was planned during the Bush administration. The Republocrat-controlled congress in '94, after a landslide victory thanks to gun owners, never did repeal any gun control legislation, and went on to increase funding to the very agencies they swore to cut. We're all very aware of the latest gun control wending its way through our congress controlled by the 2 major party.

What more do we need to know? Just exactly what would the Republicancers have to do to make some of you believe that they are not on your side? Voting for gun control doesn't seem to be enough. Giving more money to the federal agencies responsible for jailing and murdering people whose only crime is allegedly not paying a $200 tax is not enough. Supporting the most corrupt president in our history doesn't seem to be enough.

I'm just wondering, what would it take?

------------------
"The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of any of their number is self-protection."
John Stuart Mill
 
The following is directed to no one in particular, and certainly not to any members of this forum:
If you do not go to the polls and cast your vote, what you say, think, do or feel is beyond worthless to any American, past present or future. Period. No sugar coating, no feel-good fuzzy. You simply do not exist, except as a threat to freedom. You are the enemy within. Call for all the reassesment of laws you want. It will fall on deaf ears. Call for all the reforms of rights you want. You will be ignored. Call for all the social change you desire. You will lose. I will not be ruled by those placed in power by the likes of you. Vote to take back America. In the words of a great American "Those people have it"

------------------
Want to feel your age?Check it out. http://web.superb.net/boy/age1.html
 
Having read many post in this forum and others on TFL I have noticed a trend that explains why we can't rally togethor and take our country back.
Many gun owners think it's their job to just hunker down in their homes and protect their famalies. I saw this in a thread about a Sherrif in some county who wanted to deputize his CCW permit holders to work with the LEO's to ward off Y2K havoc (if it happens). It was a very sincere letter showing this sherrif's respect for law abiding citizens who carry a fire arm.
The disturbing part was a majority of the people replying said "why should they leave their family to protect the county". They think they should just stay home and aim their shotguns at the front door.
Forgive me for letting my 20yrs of military experience show here but if you don't protect and stand up for your city/ county/ country, then the same guys that rob your neighbor will be getting you next. And let's say you stop him at your door but he got off a round and took out one of your kids.
Before I get off track let me say that we need to vote on principle not party. However, until I see this (fend for myself attitude change among gun owners I either have to vote on principle or vote to (DELAY) the errosian of my rights. You can argue here all night long on voters numbers and who voted for who but the bottom line is we ended up in bed with Clinton.
People who vote for Clinton rally togethor.
They do it on MTV, Gay rights parades, NOW rallies, the Rosie Odonell show, the list goes on and on.
I would rather be in bed with a Skunk then an Alligator.
Dole or Busch may not have been the best choices but it would have given us (gunowners)time to start waking up.
I think 2000 will be a shocker. From what I have heard around my town people are sick of liberals. They are also sick of Rebublicans. IMO, Bob Smith has a good chance because he is doing things now while the others are just talking about what they will do if they become president.

Law Abiding Gun Owners!! Come out of your bunker and defend your Country!! Don't just wait to vote. Get behind a candidate and support him. Hand out flyers, hang up posters, spread the word. Put on your Nike's and "Just Do It".

If not, then we can alway's just come back here and complain about how things are.

I hope I havn't offended anyone but it's time we act.

------------------
"It is easier to get out of jail then it is a morgue"
Live long and defend yourself!
John 3:16
 
Hal: You are absolutely correct!! The 1994 election when even grouchy Joe down at the range finally got off his butt and voted has saved us so much grief you can't even imagine. It nullified Clinton for most of his term. As bad as things may seem now it would have been devastating if the Democrats had held the House and/or Senate.

I believe that choosing parties at this early point in the election cycle is of nominal importance, others may disagree. But voting, working for the candidate of your choice, contributing to the candidate of your choice, organizing shooter "get out the vote" efforts is vitally important. If we can do what we did in '94, or better yet improve on it, it will make a huge difference.

What we really need is to be able to keep up the momentum even when we aren't being directly threatened. Since we really only react in force when there's a direct threat to fiream's ownership the game becomes a tip toe about a how much can we sneak through without stirring up the hornet's nest, IOW incrementalism.

=rod=
 
From a quick glance of the numbers posted by Dennis for ’96.

There were 146,211,960 who were legally entitled to vote.

Of that 96,456,345 participated


That leaves almost 50,000,000 voters; and votes. If these people were to vote as a block (or third party) they could easily defeat either the Repubs. or the Dems. with out taking (as some view it) a single vote from either.

This notion that “the Democrats and Republicans are so entrenched that a vote cast for anything else is wasted” is a “paper tiger “. (that is ... not true)

I believe that the real obstacle in putting the “peoples choice” in office is this Electoral College system. Look at how out of balance it historically is when compared to the popular vote. It must go … so that my vote and your vote carries as much influence as anybody else’s. This accomplished 50,000,000 more voters may be up for grabs.


------------------
to locate, close with and …
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top