General John Kelly: "He said that, in his opinion, Mr. Trump met the definition of a fascist, would govern like a dictator if allowed, and had no understanding of the Constitution or the concept of rule of law."
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
VOTE FOR CHANGE!
Manassas, Virginia: Click on the image for a larger view.
It's getting close now!!! I'm nervous though given the last two elections. That said I'm about to go buy the champagne for either outcome. If we lose I'll need something to numb me out.
'Tao: No matter who wins, it will be too close for a mandate.'
Um. No.
I don't recall the 'real Americans' suggesting any such thing when George lost the popular vote (but won a majority of the Supreme Court) way back when.
After the 2004 election, George W. Bush bragged about spending his political capital.
With the exception of the 2000 election, Bush's popular vote margin of about 3.6 million votes (out of approximately 115 million total votes cast) was the smallest since 1976, when then-Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter (D) defeated President Gerald R. Ford (R) by about 1.7 million votes.
Though Bush won more votes -- 59.2 million -- than any presidential candidate in U.S. history, Kerry's vote total -- 55.7 million -- was still greater than any U.S. presidential candidate in history prior to 2004. That means more Americans cast their vote against Bush than against any other presidential candidate in U.S. history.
As Wall Street Journal Washington editor Albert R. Hunt pointed out on November 4, "It was a GOP sweep, but it also was the narrowest win for a sitting president since Woodrow Wilson in 1916."
Percentage-wise, Bush's victory was the narrowest for any wartime incumbent president in U.S. history.
Arthur, had I been blogging, I would have said such a thing.
If you remember, there was a lot of pent-up anger on the right over the Clinton years, yet Bush barely squeaked through (Don't say it; I know what you're thinking). Four years later, it was more of a mandate (that the GOP squandered). Consequently, that led to the GOP struggling this year. And if it's 1am and Obama (or McCain) wins by the barest of margins (which I predict will be the case, it's not going to be a mandate.
That changes, of course, if it's Obama in a landslide. Then you can yell mandate for a couple of years.
Out of curiosity, do you really expect me to answer for everything every Republican ever uttered?
'Out of curiosity, do you really expect me to answer for everything every Republican ever uttered?'
Of course not. Your own exaggerations and misstatements are enough for any one man to contend with. Your qualifying an Obama victory is sort of amusing. I was merely trying to spare you embarrassment.
Of course GWB did not have a mandate in 2000 but was 2004 a mandate? After 9/11 and being a wartime President and tied to the great job that the swiftboat folks did on Kerry realistically, you cannot consider that a mandate.
I think the 2006 elections prove that.
Tonight we are looking at a black man with a muslim middle name and a lot of radical friends and if the campaigns are holding rallies in Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, besides places like Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania...
We need to realize that a mandate will be most likely a popular vote lead of 5% at most and most likely turning one southern state.
From what I have seen in Kentucky, which will go McCain, is that Obama will get a mandate...he won't win Kentucky but he will end up within 10% of McCain....
13 comments:
Lets hope and pray, not only for victory but also for an overwhelming mandate....
"VOTE FOR CHANGE!"
Vote Bob Barr or Ralph Nader! :)
Tao: No matter who wins, it will be too close for a mandate.
It's getting close now!!! I'm nervous though given the last two elections. That said I'm about to go buy the champagne for either outcome. If we lose I'll need something to numb me out.
patrick m opined:
'Tao: No matter who wins, it will be too close for a mandate.'
Um. No.
I don't recall the 'real Americans' suggesting any such thing when George lost the popular vote (but won a majority of the Supreme Court) way back when.
Sorry.
After the 2004 election, George W. Bush bragged about spending his political capital.
With the exception of the 2000 election, Bush's popular vote margin of about 3.6 million votes (out of approximately 115 million total votes cast) was the smallest since 1976, when then-Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter (D) defeated President Gerald R. Ford (R) by about 1.7 million votes.
Though Bush won more votes -- 59.2 million -- than any presidential candidate in U.S. history, Kerry's vote total -- 55.7 million -- was still greater than any U.S. presidential candidate in history prior to 2004. That means more Americans cast their vote against Bush than against any other presidential candidate in U.S. history.
As Wall Street Journal Washington editor Albert R. Hunt pointed out on November 4, "It was a GOP sweep, but it also was the narrowest win for a sitting president since Woodrow Wilson in 1916."
Percentage-wise, Bush's victory was the narrowest for any wartime incumbent president in U.S. history.
Source: Media Matters
Arthur, had I been blogging, I would have said such a thing.
If you remember, there was a lot of pent-up anger on the right over the Clinton years, yet Bush barely squeaked through (Don't say it; I know what you're thinking). Four years later, it was more of a mandate (that the GOP squandered). Consequently, that led to the GOP struggling this year. And if it's 1am and Obama (or McCain) wins by the barest of margins (which I predict will be the case, it's not going to be a mandate.
That changes, of course, if it's Obama in a landslide. Then you can yell mandate for a couple of years.
Out of curiosity, do you really expect me to answer for everything every Republican ever uttered?
Patrick wondered:
'Out of curiosity, do you really expect me to answer for everything every Republican ever uttered?'
Of course not. Your own exaggerations and misstatements are enough for any one man to contend with. Your qualifying an Obama victory is sort of amusing. I was merely trying to spare you embarrassment.
Lets define Mandate....
Of course GWB did not have a mandate in 2000 but was 2004 a mandate? After 9/11 and being a wartime President and tied to the great job that the swiftboat folks did on Kerry realistically, you cannot consider that a mandate.
I think the 2006 elections prove that.
Tonight we are looking at a black man with a muslim middle name and a lot of radical friends and if the campaigns are holding rallies in Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, besides places like Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania...
We need to realize that a mandate will be most likely a popular vote lead of 5% at most and most likely turning one southern state.
From what I have seen in Kentucky, which will go McCain, is that Obama will get a mandate...he won't win Kentucky but he will end up within 10% of McCain....
I think tao is on to something.
Something's coming...
Who knows...
Arthur: Your own exaggerations and misstatements are enough for any one man to contend with.
And yet you fail to ever quote my excess.
Tao: Final numbers aren't in, but I suspect that Obama will have enough to claim a mandate.
Crap. :)
Patrick obfuscated:
'And yet you fail to ever quote my excess'
'The Marxist'.
Your original premise is preposterous.
Cheers.
Arthur, I think you need a hug.
I stand corrected. :)
patrick-
Thanks.
We all need a hug.
Mike in particular needs a hug,
Unsurprisingly he's come off the rails.
Oh well. There's always the dahlias...
Post a Comment