Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: DavidThomas
If memory serves, the NY Times headline the next day was:

"MANDATE FOR CHANGE"

2 posted on 11/05/2004 9:25:43 AM PST by The G Man (Are Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein better off now then they were 4 years ago?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: The G Man

Bubba: "Hey, man that's a lie! I never touched that chick?" Mandate for oral sex is more like it, ay?


4 posted on 11/05/2004 9:26:51 AM PST by RexBeach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: The G Man

The local paper the next morning actually said Clinton wins in landslide. Un huh. So he carried 32 states. They failed to point out he won all but one of them with less than 50%, and many he took with under 40%!

Local TV guy the next day actually said since Clinton received a whopping 42% in CT, our state's voters gave him an overwhelming mandate for change. What a laugh. 58% of voters chose someone other than Clinton, and every congressional incumbent won again. People in this state wanted the status quo, if you ask me.


13 posted on 11/05/2004 9:37:53 AM PST by TNCMAXQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: The G Man

I seem to remember the NY Times also used the phrase "electoral mandate" at the time -- to use Clinton's lopsided victory in the electoral college to obscure the fact that 57% of the voters in this country voted for someone other than Clinton.


25 posted on 11/05/2004 10:19:45 AM PST by Alberta's Child (I made enough money to buy Miami -- but I pissed it away on the Alternative Minimum Tax.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson