Romney’s Electoral College prospects bright — still

The Washington Post's Right Turn ^ | May 28, 2012 | Jennifer Rubin

[Eleutheria5]

You don’t mention Clinton in ‘92 and ‘96. Prior to 1888 there were several, most notably Lincoln.

[RedMDer]

[justiceseeker93]

You don't mention Clinton in '92 and '96.

Clinton had a plurality in the popular vote both those years, i.e., he led in the popular vote, and did so by a comfortable seven points, IIRC.

You misread my post. First of all, I was referring to to essentially two-candidate races (third party candidates not strong enough to have any impact). Secondly, I didn't say that the winner of the popular vote needed an absolute majority, only that he have a 2 point or more margin in the popular vote to be virtually certain of winning the Electoral College.

As for Lincoln, he won four-man race in 1860 and he also won a strong plurality of the popular vote, though not a majority. His three opponents divided the opposition vote quite evenly.

[Eleutheria5]

Oh. Late at night. Brain at less than full performance. Sorry.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks justiceseeker93.

[GOPsterinMA]

Nice analysis!!!

[Impy]

Exactly. Which is why I’m not overly concerned about states polls right now.

[newgeezer]

There used to be a saying that "Iowa wil go Democratic when Hell goes Methodist" but I guess that's no longer true.

After going Republican in 28 of the previous 33 Presidential Elections, Iowa has gone to the Democrat in 5 of the last 6 (and GWB's '04 victory was only 50%-49%).