Ngckld Wrote:I would doubt that cause all the presidents won their elections. Unless you're referring to if they lost there trying for there second term.
As in Bush won 59 million votes and Kerry won 55 Million votes. Has any victorious president before this election won 55 million votes before and what was the previous record. Seriously, this is NOT a difficult question.
kakomu Wrote:Seriously, this is NOT a difficult question.
then how about YOU figure it out if it is such an easy question...
rarnom Wrote:then how about YOU figure it out if it is such an easy question...
Look, just because everyone who responded to that question gave a moronic and misleading answer doesn't mean that I have to figure everything out myself.
that and I don't have access to the figures that people quote:
Quote:Bush got more votes this election than any president in the history of our country.
Give me access to some actual numbers. I don't want quotable quotes to use as masturbatorial evidence.
That, and you're avoiding the question. First by saying that Kerry got more votes than any runner up. Obvious that you don't want to touch on that, since I never mentioned historical runner ups in my post and now you decide to give me a smarmy answer rather than answering the question at hand. You know I'm right and that statistic means nothing, since Bush still only got a slim majority. It's a moral victory for kakomu.
Seems Kerry can't make up his mind. At least I know where Bush stands, I wouldn't have
wanted an indecisive president. Now I just have one question. Now that the election is
over can we stop talking about politics? In some ways I'm glad I don't pay close attention
to politics except durinng elections. It is apparent some people are going to defend Bush
and some are going to defend Kerry. Lets leave it at that. As for Bush screwing up the
economy and jobs all I have to say is this. Yeah right that was all Clintons fault. I mean
we basically had our only female president during that time. If any of you quote any
actors that Bush is wrong shame on you. During WW II actors were willing to die for their
country instead of speaking against it. All they care for now is being in the center of the
limelight. That is all I have to say. Now if you'll exscuse me I'm going to go listen to some
Elvis. Now where is that CD with his patriotic song on it?
kakomu Wrote:Look, just because everyone who responded to that question gave a moronic and misleading answer doesn't mean that I have to figure everything out myself.
I laugh at you.
kakomu Wrote:that and I don't have access to the figures that people quote:
Quote:
Bush got more votes this election than any president in the history of our country.
Give me access to some actual numbers.
If you want to see where it says Bush got more votes than any other president in history, you can read any newspaper, or check any internet cable news site and you will find something that will say exactly that.
kakomu Wrote:since Bush still only got a slim majority
Bush's 'slim majority' is bigger than any majority Clinton ever had. In fact it is the first time since 1988 that a president got more than 50% of the popular vote.
kakomu Wrote:That, and you're avoiding the question. First by saying that Kerry got more votes than any runner up. Obvious that you don't want to touch on that, since I never mentioned historical runner ups in my post and now you decide to give me a smarmy answer rather than answering the question at hand.
I just read in the paper that he got more votes than any other runner up, that is all I read. It is probably likely that yes, he did get more votes than anyone else. That is what comes when more people vote, you get more votes. If you want specific answers and more comparisons then do your own research. You obviously have internet access so stop complaining about us not doing your work for you. I don't have a hard-on for Kerry and so I don't care about his numbers or whatever compared to any past president.
kakomu Wrote:You know I'm right and that statistic means nothing...It's a moral victory for kakomu.
hahahaha. You still lost. :p
rarnom Wrote:Bush's 'slim majority' is bigger than any majority Clinton ever had. In fact it is the first time since 1988 that a president got more than 50% of the popular vote.
In 96, Clinton got 50% of the vote. While 50% is most decidedly < 51% You also have to look at the fact that the next closest number was 41%. That's a 9% overall greater vote, compared to Bush's 3% increase. Even in 92, when clinton got 43.2% of the vote, Bush only received 37.7%. Still a 4-5% lead! In the end, Bush's lead in the popular vote may have been a record amount (I finally found the necessary info and Kerry and Bush overcame Reagan's 84 election result of 54 million), however, the margin of victory is still small. Bush won by < 4million votes. In Both Elections, Clinton won by over 5 million votes (and over 8 million in 96). You're only right if you look at the raw numbers, however if you compare that to the other numbers in those elections, then you get something that Bush still hasn't achieved.
If you want to get into Electoral votes. In 96, Clinton got 70.4% and in 92, Clinton got 68.7%. Both are above and Beyond Bush's numbers.
source:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781450.html
Ryo of Inferno Wrote:During WW II actors were willing to die for their
country instead of speaking against it. All they care for now is being in the center of the
limelight. That is all I have to say. Now if you'll exscuse me I'm going to go listen to some
Elvis. Now where is that CD with his patriotic song on it?
Those were the days of actors with courage...Now actors are more like clowns...
What Elvis song would that be?
kakomu Wrote:In 96, Clinton got 50% of the vote. While 50% is most decidedly < 51% You also have to look at the fact that the next closest number was 41%. That's a 9% overall greater vote, compared to Bush's 3% increase. Even in 92, when clinton got 43.2% of the vote, Bush only received 37.7%. Still a 4-5% lead! In the end, Bush's lead in the popular vote may have been a record amount (I finally found the necessary info and Kerry and Bush overcame Reagan's 84 election result of 54 million), however, the margin of victory is still small. Bush won by < 4million votes. In Both Elections, Clinton won by over 5 million votes (and over 8 million in 96). You're only right if you look at the raw numbers, however if you compare that to the other numbers in those elections, then you get something that Bush still hasn't achieved.
If you want to get into Electoral votes. In 96, Clinton got 70.4% and in 92, Clinton got 68.7%. Both are above and Beyond Bush's numbers.
source: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781450.html
One important thing to factor in was Ross Perot's effect on everything. Many of us Republicans hate Perot for the same reason Democrats hate Nader and Perot had a MUCH larger impact on things in both '92 and '96. You can never know who Perot voters would have voted for, but you can't deny that Clinton was helped quite a bit by Perot's presence on the ballot.
And Clinton did not get 50% of the vote in '96. He got 49.2%. Sure it is close but it isn't 50%. My source is the newspaper on my lap.
I just did the math:
total voters:
47,402,357
39,198,755
+8,085,402
--------------
94,686,514
47,402,357/94,686,514=.50062 = 50%
Whoever wrote that article either didn't check his facts or quoted someone who didn't check his facts. Or they possibly just counted EVERYONE that voted, including people who did write-ins for themself or homer simpson, or something like that. In which case, you can't use that to compare against the numbers that we got for Bush and Kerry, since Nader, the green party rep and a whole host of other votes weren't counted.
Just if you are curious, the associated press article broke the numbers down like this:
Clinton 49.2%
Dole 40.7%
Perot 8.4%
OTHER 1.7%
take it as you will.
Also, every news outlet will say that no one has gotten more than 50% of the vote since 1988, so they all seem to be in agreement about that one. *shrugs*
also, while we are on the topic of percentages, Clinton's numbers have nothing on Reagan and Bush (1984 & 1988)
in 1984 Reagan had an 18% lead in the popular vote with only 0.6% going to OTHER.
in 1988 Bush sr had an 8% lead with 1% going to other. And their electoral vote totals are even more staggering. 1984 Reagan 525 to 13. 1988 Bush 426 to 111.
You brought up Clinton to compare him to Bush. So, don't worm your way out of this by having to bring up other candidates to compare to Clinton. Anyways, even if Bush Sr got a bunch of electoral votes in 88, he was still decimated in 92.
To put it frankly, Bush's victory and apparent record amount of votes is overshadowed by the fact that it was slim in both the popular and electoral vote, not to mention that Kerry also got more votes than any victorious president before him, just like Bush did. If you want to add the 'other' percentages of the 2004 election, you'll find that Bush's lead will be even slimmer.
however, you don't count just the most populous votes in one election and then count ALL the votes in another election. That's being deceptive. However, what should I expect from a Republican, a Bush and Hannity lover?
kakomu Wrote:You brought up Clinton to compare him to Bush. So, don't worm your way out of this by having to bring up other candidates to compare to Clinton. Anyways, even if Bush Sr got a bunch of electoral votes in 88, he was still decimated in 92.
To put it frankly, Bush's victory and apparent record amount of votes is overshadowed by the fact that it was slim in both the popular and electoral vote, not to mention that Kerry also got more votes than any victorious president before him, just like Bush did. If you want to add the 'other' percentages of the 2004 election, you'll find that Bush's lead will be even slimmer.
however, you don't count just the most populous votes in one election and then count ALL the votes in another election. That's being deceptive. However, what should I expect from a Republican, a Bush and Hannity lover?
:p :p :p
kakomu Wrote:You brought up Clinton to compare him to Bush. So, don't worm your way out of this by having to bring up other candidates to compare to Clinton. Anyways, even if Bush Sr got a bunch of electoral votes in 88, he was still decimated in 92.
To put it frankly, Bush's victory and apparent record amount of votes is overshadowed by the fact that it was slim in both the popular and electoral vote, not to mention that Kerry also got more votes than any victorious president before him, just like Bush did. If you want to add the 'other' percentages of the 2004 election, you'll find that Bush's lead will be even slimmer.
however, you don't count just the most populous votes in one election and then count ALL the votes in another election. That's being deceptive. However, what should I expect from a Republican, a Bush and Hannity lover?
Hahahahahaaha. You are SO BITTER!!!
Puppet Master Wrote:Those were the days of actors with courage...Now actors are more like clowns...
What Elvis song would that be?
The GI one, forgot full name.