||[Nov. 3rd, 2004|08:33 am]
I was really hoping to avoid 4 more years of deficits, fear, bigotry, and war. Of course, there's a huge area in the middle of the country that apparently disagrees with me and likes these things.
Also, what sort of crack was Andrew Card smoking when he said "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" ? Was he just discounting both Clinton victories (see the statistics yourself)?
2004-11-03 05:01 pm (UTC)
Did Clinton get a majority or just a plurality?
Clinton > Bush Senior, but when you added in Perot and other 3rds, was Clinton > 50%?
In 1992, this is true. In 1996, it may be, but I don't have enough of the popular vote numbers for other third partys (clinton led Dole + Perot by about 200k votes).
There was a huge
difference between the popular vote and the electoral vote in 1996 and 1992. Ross Perot sucked up votes, and Clinton was left with less than the majority. Info for 1996 is on the same site
you just referenced.
1996: Clinton 49% (379 EVs), Dole 40.7% (159 EVs), Perot 8.4%
1992: Clinton 43% (370), Bush Sr 37% (168), Perot 18.9%
1988: Bush Sr 53.4% (426), Dukakis 45.6% (111), 1 EV to "other"
*whistles* Thanks to a comment in today's Doonesbury, I checked the records for 1960 (Kennedy vs. Nixon). 49.72% to 49.55%, and 15 undeclared electoral votes. I'm beginning to feel a little better about the solidity about this election, even if I don't like the results.
You're taking comfort in the fact that our country is solidly for a candidate that is solidly for the opression of the rights of a minority and unwarrented preemptive war?
Heck no. I think it might be just the boost the Dems need to get their asses in gear for the next election. They can no longer say, "Well, the people wanted us." Now, they need to take a much harder view at why voters are voting against their interest.
Ah, I totally missed the aggregate stats page. Oh well.