[quote]Razorslim wrote:
- Reagan received 489 electoral votes (44 states) to Carter’s 48 electoral voted (7 states)
If Carter had received 100% of Anderson’s votes, Reagan would still have won with 331 electoral votes (30 states) to Carter’s 207 electoral votes (21 states)
If Carter had received 67% of Anderson’s votes, and Reagan 33%, Reagan would still have won with 452 electoral votes (39 states) to Carter’s 86 electoral votes (12 states)
If Carter had received 50% of Anderson’s votes, and Reagan 50%, Reagan would still have won with 489 electoral votes (44 states) to Carter’s 48 electoral votes (7 states), same as the actual election
Seems like a runaway election no matter how the Anderson vote would have distributed had he not run. Feel free to check my math
[/quote]
I’m not checking your math whether it’s right or wrong it is irrelevant to the point. I never once said that Reagan would not have won the election anyway. What I said was Anderson got most of his votes from what would have been Carter supporters as he, Anderson was quite liberal.
That’s one down.
And since you accused me of claiming my opinion as fact, do you want to take a shot at refuting the rest of thse as well?
Fact: Romney scores higher than Gingrich in the polls with the three groups that I pointed out.
Fact: The republicans cannot win without winning the independents.
Fact: You accused Romney of “working too hard” and I pointed out how that hard work (if that is the case) paid off in the debate. Would he be crushing your boy Newt right now if he didn’t do well in the debate? Look what happened when Newt beat him in a debate in SC.
Fact: While it’s difficult to measure these things if you don’t think that Obama had more charisma than McCain most around here would think you have a serious judgment problem. Instead of just an insecurity about admitting that you’re wrong…which as I said is quite common during an Internet debate.