If. Now there's a strong argument.............
The fact is that IF Lincoln was so wildly popular he would have gotten 50, 60, maybe even 70% of the popular vote regardless of how many candidates were running.
But IF you want to do IF's, I say that IF DisHonest Abe had been running by himself, he would have still only gotten 39% of the popular vote. Hell, maybe less.
BTW, I'd rather be associated with Judge Napolitano than you and your ilk any day.
I mean different from humans in general.
So, you consider me sub-human but respond to my every post. Do you communicate with other non-human life forms as well?
So you're saying that neither Bush or Reagan had a mandate? Just to be clear.
The 1980 election was as much about getting rid of Carter as the 2000 election was of purging the Clinton's.
The 1984 election was a true mandate. 2004? If Obama had been running in 2004 Bush would have never seen a second term.
Just to be clear.
No if. Fact.
The fact is that IF Lincoln was so wildly popular he would have gotten 50, 60, maybe even 70% of the popular vote regardless of how many candidates were running.
Your fantasy, you mean. The fact is that Lincoln was popular enough to beat his nearest opponent by 10 percentage points in the popular vote and 108 electoral votes.
But IF you want to do IF's, I say that IF DisHonest Abe had been running by himself, he would have still only gotten 39% of the popular vote. Hell, maybe less.
Your math skills are truly dazzling. </sarcasm>
BTW, I'd rather be associated with Judge Napolitano than you and your ilk any day.
BTW, you're welcome to him.
So, you consider me sub-human but respond to my every post. Do you communicate with other non-human life forms as well?
No. Just you.
The 1980 election was as much about getting rid of Carter as the 2000 election was of purging the Clinton's.
But you're saying that in 1980 Reagan did not have a mandate, right?