And you can spin it whatever way you want to. Lincoln would have won if he had a single opponent instead of 3, and if he'd still gotten only 39% of the vote.
You're getting more absurd and irrational with every post.
What is absurd or irrational about the truth? Even with three opponents Lincoln took 50.1% or more of the votes cast in states with 173 electoral votes. Enough to win.
BTW, who are you saying got 90% of the electoral votes?
What other president have we been talking about? Reagan took 90.9% of the electoral vote in 1980 and 97.6% of them in 1988. But according to you the '84 election was a real squeaker.
Well, let me remind you what the point the Judge was making that you have unsuccessfully tried to contend with you weak electoral college argument: Lincoln was NOT a popular president throughout the US in 1860.
What other president have we been talking about?
So far, Lincoln, Reagan and Obama. I think that I mentioned Clinton, too.
But according to you the '84 election was a real squeaker.
I said that the the 1980 election was close and that the 1984 election represented an actual popular vote mandate.
Once again you are caught telling a lie.
But, not much more can be expected from a congenital liar................