[prometheus]

Bush's victory was the NARROWEST win for a sitting president since Woodrow Wilson in 1916.

Say what? I would check that out before I accepting that.

[Brett66]

Once again, Moore makes up his own facts as he goes along. I believe the Kennedy win over Nixon was much narrower.

[bluecollarman]

"It is against the law for George W. Bush to run for president again."

In a time of war or national emergency, this can be changed.

[PokeyJoe]

Michael had to couch it as "sitting president"... because JFK won the 1960 popular vote by LESS votes that BUSH WON IN OHIO. NIXON WON BECAUSE LBJ CHEATED VOTES FOR JFK!

President Bush uses something that Michael doesn't have.
Soap. Michael needs a new hat. His current hat smells of rotting fish, boiling in puke and cheese sauce. No wait... that's his hair.

Maybe we can talk Rush into having a bake sale to raise money to buy MM a new hat.

[FairOpinion]

Clinton only got 49% when he was a sitting president.

[Paleo Conservative]

Bush's victory was the NARROWEST win for a sitting president since Woodrow Wilson in 1916.

Woodrow Wilson did not receive a majority in 1916; W did in 2004!

[kcvl]

Wilson’s triumph in the Democratic convention of 1912 was not assured, but in the end owed much to former nominee William Jennings Bryan. The main challenge in the campaign came from Theodore Roosevelt, the Bull Moose candidate, who trumpeted his progressive message as the “New Nationalism.” Wilson responded with a vigorous campaign of his own and dubbed his more restrained form of progressivism as the “New Freedom.” Both reform candidates recognized that the main issue of the day was the relationship between big business and government. Wilson’s whopping electoral victory was somewhat misleading; he received only about 42 percent of the popular vote, but that was sufficient to become the first Democratic president in 20 years.

[Verginius Rufus]

This may be technically true but meaningless...I guess it is an attempt to make Bush's win seem less impressive than Clinton's in 1996 even though Clinton could not reach the 50% mark of the popular vote. The criterion must be electoral votes rather than the popular vote margin, since Bush's popular vote margin was larger than Truman's in 1948.

The only elections that count in this game are when a sitting president won re-election:

Wilson in 1916
Coolidge in 1924
FDR in 1936, 1940, and 1944
Truman in 1948
Eisenhower in 1956
LBJ in 1964
Nixon in 1972
Reagan in 1984
Clinton in 1996
Bush in 2004

All the other incumbent presidents had at least 300 electoral votes (Truman was lowest with 303, but Dewey had only 189 because of Thurmond); apart from 1948, every successful incumbent president won at least 375 electoral votes. Bush is the first president since McKinley to win twice without ever reaching the 300 mark.

[Gideon7]

Bush's victory was the NARROWEST win for a sitting president since Woodrow Wilson in 1916.

Mikey is spinning as usual. If you don't arbitrarily pick a 1916 starting date like Mikey does, you'd know that most other 2nd term elections in US History had a narrower vote spread than Bush II: Wilson (590,000 votes), Lincoln (400,000 votes), and Jackson (157,000 votes).

After 1916 all of the 2nd term elections (except for Clintoon) were wartime or Republican landslide elections.

[BlueNgold]

But a much bigger win than is buddy Jimmy (hee hee), he might remember that while maligning Reagan.

[PowerPro]

It seems to me that the left seems to have an odd preoccupation with Woodrow Wilson...

I recall Kerry saying for months that "This is the first Presidency since Woodrow Wilson to lose jobs..." (of course none of them had 9/11, the technology bubble bursting, Clinton's bumbling of the economy, etc., but that's another story)...

[Defiant]

Except for the ones who lost. And the ones who didn't even get a majority, like Clinton, but who won by a higher percentage.

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

2. Bush's victory was the NARROWEST win for a sitting president since Woodrow Wilson in 1916.

Fabrication. Look in the history books. Bush's 2004 victory is the narrowest win for a sitting president since Bill Clinton in 1996! This year Bush received 50.96% of the popular vote; thus, 49.04% of the electorate voted against him--a popular vote margin for the winner of 1.92 percentage points. In 1996 The 'Toon received 49.23%; thus, 50.77% voted against him--a popular vote margin for The 'Toon of -1.54 percentage points.

QED

[NYCVirago]

Bush's victory was the NARROWEST win for a sitting president since Woodrow Wilson in 1916. Say what? I would check that out before I accepting that.

Truman had a 4.4% margin of victory. Bush's is very close to that, and we don't know the final tally yet.

At any rate, this column is putting lipstick on a pig.

[kabar]

Bush's victory was the NARROWEST win for a sitting president since Woodrow Wilson in 1916.

More than likely true. However note the word win. Incumbents like Carter, Bush I, etc. lost in their relection bids.