Godwynn
March to the Sea
- Joined
- May 17, 2003
- Messages
- 20,502
A 7 point spread is close?
An 8 or 9 seat gain the United States Senate is close? Really?
How do you define "blowout" then?
-
Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .
Howard Deans legacy as DNC chairman...
- Thread starter MobBoss
- Start date
A 7 point spread is close?
An 8 or 9 seat gain the United States Senate is close? Really?
How do you define "blowout" then?
North King
blech
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 18,165
So 2004, Bush's "mandate", was extremely close. 1988 was fairly close. Eh? Eh?
No.
Reagan's win
Johnson's margin >> Reagan's.
Aramazd
Deity
What about Nixon's win against McGovern?
Howard Dean just said a couple of days he wasn't interested in a position, namely, Surgeon General, and that he was more effective where he was at.
Also, Howard Dean was the first candidate with significant internet backing, and Obama's campaign got tons of money form the internet.
Howard Dean = win. Terry McAuliffe = lose.
Thats stupid. It was the largest electoral landslide in 20 years. It wasn't close at all.
Howard Dean's 50 State Strategy had opened up several new state battlegrounds. It was highly successful by any viable metric.
dwaxe
is not a fanatic
I could've sworn you said you were over it in the weeks following the election...
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
How about just old posts?And I guess my prediction of you necro'ing more useless old threads came true. How about that.
It's been a hoot listening to you righties howl and whine about Obama the last 2 months. Thanks2. When McCain beats Obama its going to be a hoot listening to all you leftys howl and whine about it.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
I said 'fairly' close didnt I?
Lyndon Johnson's 61.1% to Barry Goldwater's 38.5% in the 1964 presidential election
Franklin D. Roosevelt's 60.8% to Alf Landon's 36.5% in the 1936 presidential election
Richard Nixon's 60.7% to George McGovern's 37.5% in the 1972 presidential election
Warren Harding's 60.3% to James M. Cox's 34.1% in the 1920 presidential election
Ronald Reagan's 58.8% to Walter Mondale's 40.6% in the 1984 presidential election
Theodore Roosevelt's 56.4% to Alton B. Parker's 37.6% in the 1904 presidential election
No, that's not particularly close.
Bush won in 2004 by like what, less than 2%? He lost in 2000. Bill clinton won in 1992 and 1996 and never cracked 50%. Our elections are typically close.
RedRalph
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 20,708
Be that as it may, Obama won a close election, he didnt run away with it at all. And considering Bush, he should have...
365 electoral votes is not close; neither is 52.9% of the popular vote in a Presidential Election.
And no, it was predicted back in 2006 via simulation that a democrat would win the election with 52% of the vote.
RedRalph
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 20,708
How is it not close? only 2% of the electorate would have had to change their minds for it to have ended differently?
No they don't. We've had presidents elected with roughly 40% or so of the popular vote. Popular vote has nothing to do with whether or not a President will be elected.
Pretty easy for that to happen; just have major third party candidates. Lincoln had 39.8% of the popular vote while having 180 electoral votes, a majority. It was a four-way contest. And it would have been possible for the president to have even less popular vote. Election of 1824 is a classic example; the President had neither a plurality of the popular vote nor a plurality of the electoral vote.
No, thats not how it works. We don't elect people via the popular vote.
There could have been an 8% swing and Obama could have still won.
EDIT: CURSE YOU BILL
RedRalph
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 20,708
But if the 2% swing had been spread correctly over specific states, then that could have been enough, wouldnt it?
