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?
Bubba Ho-Tep, Is that your view?
Would the Both of you fight against someone with the same enthusiasm that Said-A State couldn't under any circumstances withdraw?
Seriously
I wouldn't characterize 39% as 'popular', but keep on spinning, liar.
Your math skills are truly dazzling.
So are you spin skills. /sarc
But you're saying that in 1980 Reagan did not have a mandate, right?
You can hardly call just over 50% of the popular vote a resounding mandate.
If that's the case, then Obonga (the product of the loins of a Kansas woman) received a clear signal in November that the American people issued a mandate to socialize/communize the US.