'tics

The Perot thing is what I was referring to. In 92 Clinton came in w/ less than 50% of the vote and was therefore perceived to be "without a mandate," which hurt his policy ambitions, most notably his effort to overhaul heathcare. I just looked it up and he won 43% that election, so yes I think that 7-8% mattered a lot. It's mainly a function of the how the media interprets the results. They create the political reality and what they say doesn't have to make sense. If Bloomberg runs and then a Democrat wins with 43% rather than 57% it will make a big difference. I won't complain, because at least we'll have a Democrat, but I'd rather get a solid majority and a perceived mandate to make some big changes.