posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 07:35 PM
As I see it, or saw it, there was a consensus that Bush Sr. hardly tried in 92… plus to say that Clinton was less legit by winning 6% more when Bush
didn’t even get 40% of the vote holds less water.
Keep in mind I did not vote for Clinton either time, but even though 3rd parties are looked down upon by Repub’s and Dem’s they are still very
legit and I don’t feel you should take away from their votes however large or small in each election.
I thought the 2000 election the Dem’s had a legitimate beef, although one they couldn’t win without a definitive count… not going to open up
that can of worms here
in 1992 we are talking about a 6% difference and a clear-cut winner regardless of how high the winning percentage was. In
2000 we had the guy with more votes not becoming President.
I posted a different thread here
about elections being preplanned… let me know what you think…