Quote:
Originally posted by ladygreek
According to Carlos Watson it has only been four elections since the presidential candidate got a majority vote. (Because of strong third parties.) Before then it was the norm so it isn't that historical.
Its not like he won with 75 percent of the vote. Now that would be historical. And he is the incumbent. So this should be more like a "whew" we survived this challenge.
ETA: I still believe that whoever wins the popular vote should win the presidency and if that person is W, then so be it.
|
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.
Threaded Mode