Quote:
Originally posted by Love_Spell_6
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Nov3.html
"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. And in this election, President Bush received more votes than any presidential candidate in our country's history," he said.
You may try to minimize the importance of this since your candidate didn't win..but the historical significance is here nonetheless. The Repubs have the Presidency, the House, and the Senate.. Dubya won this with ALL the media except Fox News against him, the Hollywood ultra liberals, and Michael Mooron campaigning... the 527's ... this man ran a tight campaign...and he deserved the win.
|
Four elections = 16 years = 1988. Isn't that what I said? So why is it so historical? It was basically a two-party race, unlike some of the more recent races that had stronger third parties, thus of course someone would get the majority. AND this has been the largest voter turnout since 1968 and the population has increased, so what is the significance of it being historical?
For example, every year we say our sorority national conventions are the biggest in history. Well that is because our membership grows every year, so you would expect them to get bigger evey year. So being historical means nothing in that context.
And btw, Kerry got the second largest number of votes of any presidential candidate in our country's history.