It's nothing compared to the spin you're putting on it.
Do you dispute that Lincoln "received only 39 percent of the popular vote" in the 1860 election?
No. Do you dispute that Lincoln received 59.4% of the electoral votes and would have won the election even if there had only been two candidates?
Not me, but you're different.
ROTFLMAO!!!!! Cowboyway, you give a whole new meaning to the term 'different'.
If you really were the great scholar that you often profess to be, I would think that you would be spending your time on more productive pursuits instead of chronically idling in anonymity on an the interweb, posting ad nauseam.
OK, let's use your tactic. Point out where I ever claimed to be a great scholar. Show me the exact quote from me claiming that. Do it or STFU.
How's that? Pretty good imitation of you, wasn't it?
By using electoral college numbers and ignoring popular vote numbers, both Bill Clinton (in 1992) and Barack Obama were landslide victories, also.
You use statistics the way a drunk uses a lamppost - for support rather than illumination. George Bush took 50.73% of the popular vote in 2004, Ronald Reagan took 50.75% in 1980. By your standards the two victories were equivilent. Statistically speaking, however, there is no comparison considering the margin of victory in the only count that mattered - the Electoral College.
Right, Mr. Spinmeister.........
Do you dispute that Lincoln received 59.4% of the electoral votes
Get off it. You were trying to use your lame argument to dispute the Judge's use of the popular vote to demonstrate just how unpopular Lincoln was.
Cowboyway, you give a whole new meaning to the term 'different'.
If that means different from you then that is a very good thing, indeed.
Point out where I ever claimed to be a great scholar. Show me the exact quote from me claiming that. Do it or STFU.
Every one of your post exhibits a certain pomposity and arrogance that is very typical of the snobby elitist. Take a look at Obama and you will see Non-Sequitur.
George Bush took 50.73% of the popular vote in 2004, Ronald Reagan took 50.75% in 1980.
51% of the popular vote is not a mandate because it means that 49% of the people were against you.
Reagan's 1984 victory would be a better example of a mandate when he got almost 60% of the popular vote.
There is no way to argue that 39% of the popular vote represents a political mandate by any candidate regardless of how you try to represent the electoral college.