Why do BushHeads act like it was a landslide?

[joshw10]

I heard someone compare this election to Reagan's 1984 re-election. Of course, Reagan won 49 states. This election was almost exactly the same as 4 years ago but larger margins of victory in the red states and Florida.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: joshw10
I heard someone compare this election to Reagan's 1984 re-election. Of course, Reagan won 49 states. This election was almost exactly the same as 4 years ago but larger margins of victory in the red states and Florida.

and bush won iowa and new mexico as well

 

[Aegeon]

By the way, here is an article noting how Republicans LOST control of state legislatures in this election.

Republicans now control 20 state Legislatures. Democrats have 19, and 10 are split, with Democrats holding one chamber and Republicans the other.

Before Tuesday's vote, the GOP held 21 and the Democrats 17, with 11 split. The Nebraska Legislature, which has only one chamber, is nonpartisan

http://www.latimes.com/news/na...ll=la-headlines-nation

This shows that some Republicans have gotten to the point of outright ignoring what happened in this election in their rush to support the argument that this was a landslide.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JoLLyRoGer
Landslide...

Land don't vote. We already know that Bush got the rural vote.

This was the 6th closest election in American history, and the 2nd closest win for an incumbent president in American history (closest was Wilson in 1916).

"Landslide" is FDR in 1932, Reagan in 1984, or Nixon in 1972.

Yes, Bush got more popular votes than any presidential candidate in American history. But Kerry got more popular votes than any president who has ever been elected. What does that mean? That there were no 3rd party candidates, people "got the vote out", and that America's population has grown. Regardless, we don't elect our presidents that way.

The wins for Pubs in the House and Senate were impressive, but by no means would I say that Bush got a "mandate" from the people. The house of the American people is still divided, as it has been since 1992 (when Clinton, despite not achieving a majority, beat Bush Sr. by more popular and electoral votes than Bush Jr. just beat Kerry by), and this election proved that.

Statistics need to be taken with a grain of salt, as they can be easily skewed and rarely show the whole picture. Where's that poll that makes it look like more educated people voted for Bush, when in fact it shows that people without a college degree were more likely to vote for Bush?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: JoLLyRoGer

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Chadder007

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Tiles2Tech
It wasn't a landslide at all. It was a win, just a close win. That's all.

Exactly. It certainly isn't the "will of the people". It's the will of about 20% of the people.

It was the will of 51-52% of the people who care to voice their will.

51% vs. 48.5%...ooo...big mandate. That 51% still works out to only 20% of the people in this country.

ya but its a democracy, the will of the 20% trumps the will of your 18.8%

bush didnt win by a landslide, but at least he beat the spread

We're not a true democracy. If we were, Gore would have won in 2000. We are, essentially, majority rule with minority protection. Although, with this administration, a certain aspect of that minority protection is being trampled.

I must agree 100% we are NOT a democracy, we are a republic, as in "...and to the Republic for which it stands..."

IOW Majority rules...

with minority protection.

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JoLLyRoGer
Landslide...

The wins for Pubs in the House and Senate were impressive, but by no means would I say that Bush got a "mandate" from the people. The house of the American people is still divided, as it has been since 1992 (when Clinton, despite not achieving a majority, beat Bush Sr. by more popular and electoral votes than Bush Jr. just beat Kerry by), and this election proved that.

Statistics need to be taken with a grain of salt, as they can be easily skewed and rarely show the whole picture. Where's that poll that makes it look like more educated people voted for Bush, when in fact it shows that people without a college degree were more likely to vote for Bush?

One thing about the 1992 vote, Perot, had he'd not been a third party, Bush Sr. would have won. Like you say, you gotta look at the whole picture. I don't think the country was that divided back then, atleast not as much as it is today.

Bush got the majority, and the largest number of votes in history, but Kerry got the 2nd largest amount of votes in history.

 

[joshw10]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: joshw10
I heard someone compare this election to Reagan's 1984 re-election. Of course, Reagan won 49 states. This election was almost exactly the same as 4 years ago but larger margins of victory in the red states and Florida.

and bush won iowa and new mexico as well

and new hampshire went the other way. all 3 are small states that were very close last time around. not much changed