(02-22-2012, 02:09 PM)eppie Wrote: Well I don't think it is a particular strange number. What about the support he had in the polls earlier? It is clear that longer before elections people answer differently to the question who they are votin to then just before the elections. Don't underestimate the strategic vote.
Don't overestimate the strategic vote, either.
Perot draws from both parties, which takes a bit dent out of the whole reason for strategic voting in the first place. Perot also did not lead in the polls from Democratic convention onwards. Once it became clear that the Dems had a solid candidate, and once Perot made a fool of himself by pointlessly dropping out of the race, he never came out of third place. Indeed, once Clinton was more or less certain to win, I suspect Perot's vote went up, not down, since strategic voting became less important, not more. Perot voters in solid blue or red states no longer had to hold back their votes.
There was no massive strategic shift away from Perot. He was a flash-in-the-pan novelty candidate, no more likely to win the Presidency than Michele Bachmann or Herman Cain was to win the GOP nomination. He looked good, until people got a clear look at him, then he tanked.
-Jester