Could this be a bigger win than we think?

[GTaudiophile]

Sorry, but I find this impressive:

President Bush's decisive margin of victory makes this the first presidential election since 1988 in which the winner received a majority of the popular vote," said Card, referring to the White House victory by Bush's father, President George H.W. Bush. "And in this election, President Bush received more votes than any presidential candidate in our country's history."

 

[Czar]

being discussed here
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...2989&enterthread=y

First part is correct the second part isnt as far as I can tell

 

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Sorry, but I find this impressive:

President Bush's decisive margin of victory makes this the first presidential election since 1988 in which the winner received a majority of the popular vote," said Card, referring to the White House victory by Bush's father, President George H.W. Bush. "And in this election, President Bush received more votes than any presidential candidate in our country's history."

I don't think that is correct:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781450.html

Doh!, nevermind... Up too late & too early this morning, majority yes, plurality no.

Viper GTS

 

[lozina]

This irrelevent statistic has already been thrown in another thread.

Bush getting a majority does not mean anything for him. All it tells us is the independent party had a HORRIBLE performance this year.

 

[conjur]

As I said before, it's a good thing our country's population hasn't increased in 20 years.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: conjur
As I said before, it's a good thing our country's population hasn't increased in 20 years.

It never surprises me how stupid Bush's staff thinks his electorate is.

 

[GasX]

Clinton had a majority in his second election -

 

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: Mwilding
Clinton had a majority in his second election -

Doubtful. Out of the three major candidates he had a majority, but if you count the minors, write ins, etc. they probably more than make up the ~120K votes.

Viper GTS

 

[GasX]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: Mwilding
Clinton had a majority in his second election -

Doubtful. Out of the three major candidates he had a majority, but if you count the minors, write ins, etc. they probably more than make up the ~120K votes.

Viper GTS

Ah - fair enough

 

[lozina]

I find this more impressive:

In 1992 Clinton beat the Republican challenger by 6 points
In 1992 Clinton beat the Republican challenger by over 8 points
in 2004, Bush beat Kerry by only 3 points

Now that's impressive

 

[GasX]

Originally posted by: lozina
I find this more impressive:

In 1992 Clinton beat the Republican challenger by 6 points
In 1992 Clinton beat the Republican challenger by over 8 points
in 2004, Bush beat Kerry by only 3 points

Now that's impressive

Except there was a viable third candidate which changes the comparison to a meaningless one...

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: Mwilding

Originally posted by: lozina
I find this more impressive:

In 1992 Clinton beat the Republican challenger by 6 points
In 1992 Clinton beat the Republican challenger by over 8 points
in 2004, Bush beat Kerry by only 3 points

Now that's impressive

Except there was a viable third candidate which changes the comparison to a meaningless one...

Which is exactly my point on this whole "majority of votes" gloating. Thank you for realizing that.

 

[GasX]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: Mwilding

Originally posted by: lozina
I find this more impressive:

In 1992 Clinton beat the Republican challenger by 6 points
In 1992 Clinton beat the Republican challenger by over 8 points
in 2004, Bush beat Kerry by only 3 points

Now that's impressive

Except there was a viable third candidate which changes the comparison to a meaningless one...

Which is exactly my point on this whole "majority of votes" gloating. Thank you for realizing that.

I am very much aware that there are three types of lies...

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Mwilding

Originally posted by: lozina
I find this more impressive:

In 1992 Clinton beat the Republican challenger by 6 points
In 1992 Clinton beat the Republican challenger by over 8 points
in 2004, Bush beat Kerry by only 3 points

Now that's impressive

Except there was a viable third candidate which changes the comparison to a meaningless one...

How does it change the comparison? If the 3rd wasn't there, the majority would break towards the Democrat. That is what we saw in states that didn't have Nadar on their ballot, and that falls in line with how Independents/Greens/Liberitarians break for Dems.

 

[Rainsford]

Without "throwing a fit" as Amused seems to think I did in the other thread, here's the cold hard facts on this one.

Bush had to win the majority of the popular vote in order to win because he and Kerry together had more than 99% of the popular vote, so even a tiny margin of victory would have required more than 50% of the popular vote. Other than the 2000 election, this was the closest election in terms of popular vote since 1976.

This is not that impressive of a victory. It's a clear victory, but not one for the history books or anything.

 

[351Cleveland]

No, what is impressive is that the President won convincingly in the popular vote, and unquestionably in the electoral vote DESPITE 90% of Hollywood campaigning against him, Michael Moore (I put him in his own category cause he is so freaking FAT he wouldnt fit into one with anyone else), and the media at large.

The HUGE turnout that was SUPPOSED to help Democrats backfired. The "cell phone" block of voters turned out to be bunk.

Most votes EVER, and the first MAJORITY winner since 1988. Not even CLINTON got the majority vote.

I get my election results statistics here:

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland
No, what is impressive is that the President won convincingly in the popular vote, and unquestionably in the electoral vote DESPITE 90% of Hollywood campaigning against him, Michael Moore (I put him in his own category cause he is so freaking FAT he wouldnt fit into one with anyone else), and the media at large.

The HUGE turnout that was SUPPOSED to help Democrats backfired. The "cell phone" block of voters turned out to be bunk.

Most votes EVER, and the first MAJORITY winner since 1988. Not even CLINTON got the majority vote.

I get my election results statistics here:

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/

Please read my post, the stats don't lie. Bush clearly won, but not impressivly so from a historical perspective.

 

[Tylanner]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Sorry, but I find this impressive:

"And in this election, President Bush received more votes than any presidential candidate in our country's history."[/i]

Not impressive in reguards to bush, but to the voter turn out.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Tylanner

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Sorry, but I find this impressive:

"And in this election, President Bush received more votes than any presidential candidate in our country's history."[/i]

Not impressive in reguards to bush, but to the voter turn out.

Indeed. It's also worth noting that except for Reagan in 1984 and Bush this year, Kerry has more votes than any other candidate in history (that includes winners). And Reagan won by a big margin. The fact that 2 of the top 3 were in a very tight race says we had a pretty good turnout.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Tylanner

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Sorry, but I find this impressive:

"And in this election, President Bush received more votes than any presidential candidate in our country's history."[/i]

Not impressive in reguards to bush, but to the voter turn out.

Indeed. It's also worth noting that except for Reagan in 1984 and Bush this year, Kerry has more votes than any other candidate in history (that includes winners). And Reagan won by a big margin. The fact that 2 of the top 3 were in a very tight race says we had a pretty good turnout.

Yes, I'm stoked so many Americans took part in the political process :beer:

 

[GasX]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Mwilding

Originally posted by: lozina
I find this more impressive:

In 1992 Clinton beat the Republican challenger by 6 points
In 1992 Clinton beat the Republican challenger by over 8 points
in 2004, Bush beat Kerry by only 3 points

Now that's impressive

Except there was a viable third candidate which changes the comparison to a meaningless one...

How does it change the comparison? If the 3rd wasn't there, the majority would break towards the Democrat. That is what we saw in states that didn't have Nadar on their ballot, and that falls in line with how Independents/Greens/Liberitarians break for Dems.

It changes the comparison because one situation is kind of like an Apple and the other is kind of like an orange...

 

[351Cleveland]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland
No, what is impressive is that the President won convincingly in the popular vote, and unquestionably in the electoral vote DESPITE 90% of Hollywood campaigning against him, Michael Moore (I put him in his own category cause he is so freaking FAT he wouldnt fit into one with anyone else), and the media at large.

The HUGE turnout that was SUPPOSED to help Democrats backfired. The "cell phone" block of voters turned out to be bunk.

Most votes EVER, and the first MAJORITY winner since 1988. Not even CLINTON got the majority vote.

I get my election results statistics here:

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/

Please read my post, the stats don't lie. Bush clearly won, but not impressivly so from a historical perspective.

In cold numbers... no. It ist just the average presidential win.

When you factor in the unprecedented Hollywood involvement (how many high budget movies against Bush?)... the Liberals threw EVERYTHING they had at him, and STILL he wins by 3.6 million votes.

I consider that impressive.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland
No, what is impressive is that the President won convincingly in the popular vote, and unquestionably in the electoral vote DESPITE 90% of Hollywood campaigning against him, Michael Moore (I put him in his own category cause he is so freaking FAT he wouldnt fit into one with anyone else), and the media at large.

The HUGE turnout that was SUPPOSED to help Democrats backfired. The "cell phone" block of voters turned out to be bunk.

Most votes EVER, and the first MAJORITY winner since 1988. Not even CLINTON got the majority vote.

I get my election results statistics here:

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/

Please read my post, the stats don't lie. Bush clearly won, but not impressivly so from a historical perspective.

In cold numbers... no. It ist just the average presidential win.

When you factor in the unprecedented Hollywood involvement (how many high budget movies against Bush?)... the Liberals threw EVERYTHING they had at him, and STILL he wins by 3.6 million votes.

I consider that impressive.

LOL, you are just impressed that Bush was able to win

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Mwilding

Originally posted by: lozina
I find this more impressive:

In 1992 Clinton beat the Republican challenger by 6 points
In 1992 Clinton beat the Republican challenger by over 8 points
in 2004, Bush beat Kerry by only 3 points

Now that's impressive

Except there was a viable third candidate which changes the comparison to a meaningless one...

How does it change the comparison? If the 3rd wasn't there, the majority would break towards the Democrat. That is what we saw in states that didn't have Nadar on their ballot, and that falls in line with how Independents/Greens/Liberitarians break for Dems.

By the sounds of it, you weren't old enough to vote during Clinton's terms. It wasn't Nader who had any sway in the 92 and 96 votes, it was Perot. And many '92 Perot voters were Repubs, me included.

 

[gopunk]

all this tells me is that democracy isn't a perfect system