Re: The debates mess (2) -- Harper v Ignatieff?

He may have run in 96, but  don't recall him being nearly as much of a factor.  
Dole was the republican nominee IIRC and was destined to lose from the start, he 
was the classic "its his turn" candidate.  And wasn't there a candidate on the 
left that pulled votes from Clinton and was part of him only getting a plurality 
again.  Was it Nader?  


I think you are correct on Bush in '04.  

Mike F.




________________________________
From: Peter T. Chattaway <petert-LOVM4QxV+tDq6eQxt3vRmLDks+cytr/[email protected]>
To: DADL (off topic) <[email protected]>
Sent: Fri, April 1, 2011 11:09:29 AM
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] The debates mess (2) -- Harper v Ignatieff?

On Fri, 1 Apr 2011, Bruce Geerdes wrote:

>>>> The next prime minister will be, let’s face it, either Stephen Harper or 
>>>>Michael Ignatieff. Surely the debates should be a one-on-one affair.
>>> 
>>> Just like the Americans do it! ;)
>> 
>> I can't remember, did Perot take part in the debates in '92 or '96?
> 
> I'm thinking '92, spoiling the election for GHW Bush.

So he took part in '92, but not in '96?  I have a vague recollection that he ran 
for president both times, and that Clinton, as a result, won the presidency but 
never had a clear majority of the popular vote.  (If memory serves, Bush's 
re-election in '04 marked the first time that someone had won more than 50% of 
the vote since his dad won the election in '88.)

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot