LOVE YA W!!!
Posted on 11/18/2004 8:14:57 AM PST by calreaganfan
Pres. Bush's vote total from the Nov. 2004 election has now exceeded 61 1/4 million votes which is nearly 11 million more votes than he received in 2000! The national vote count is winding down. Pres. Bush's final vote total should approach 61.5 million. The current AP vote count is lagging by more than 600,000 votes.
Haaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrr dee hhhhhaaaarrrr hhhhaaaarrrrr har
Ok. Got it now.
So, Reagan got a larger percentage of the total than Bush did. He also won more states and had more votes electoral than Bush.
To mention just the votes it don't make sense. I think percentages or votes electoral is more important.
OK so Reagan is still the champ.
Done. President Bush won by just over 6,000 votes.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1282457/posts
quote: What would you like to call it if not a mandate, friend?
Six million more votes sounds like a mandate to me.
But, be careful on the use of the word mandate. The only politician elected with a man-date was Gov McGreevy. :) Just heard this joke the other day.
Shouldn't that be 6,000,000?
My mistake.
You're talking about New Mexico.
6,000,000? Aren't that many voters (dead or alive) in New Mexico!!
You betcha!
In 1980 Reagan received 489 electoral votes. In 1984 Reagan received a record 525 electoral votes and 58.77% of the popular vote to boot! In those terms, with almost 119 million votes cast in 2004, Reagan would be close to ~70 million votes.
"But Bush`s victory doesn't measure up to PresReagan's landslide victories of 1980 and 1984."
I'm a big Reagan fan (worked on his campaigns as far back as 1976), but Reagan's victory in 1984 was more personal than party. As I recall, the Republicans lost seats in both the House and the Senate. This contrasts with Pres. Bush's stunning successes in 2004 and 2002. He is the first President since FDR in 1936 to gain seats in both houses of Congress while running for re-election. Pres. Bush is also the first President in a very long time to pick up seats in the House and the Senate in the off-year (2002) and general (2004) elections.
I'd be interested to see how much better W did in South Florida this time around. Their brush with the 9/11 hijackers and the anthrax attacks gave the WOT special significance down there, I imagine.
Go W! WOO HOO!!!
Yeah!!!...baby....!!
You forgot Barney Franks.
>You forgot Barney Franks.
Oops! That's right forgot about this other hybrid in Massachussets. He, too, gets reelected with a clear man-date.
I'm sure glad the dems wanted to COUNT EVERY VOTE!!!!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
---
LOL!
Yep, me too. 76, 80 and 84. Great time.
As I said, the 2004 election outcome was a victory for the GOP across the board. No doubt about it. But I wouldn't call it a stunning success. Maybe the Democrats are astonished and in disbelief. Not me. It's a party mandate and I believe the President along with the GOP leadership will take advantage of this victory during the next two years. I hope and pray they act wisely and don't piss away this historical opportunity to change America.
>>>>Reagan's victory in 1984 was more personal than party.
Not really. The GOP controlled the Senate from 1981 through 1986 and that control gave Reagan a significant level of power during his negotiations with Speaker Tip O'Neill. The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 and Tax Reform Act of 1986 became law because of Reagan and the GOP Senate control.
It's because Kerry also got more votes than Reagan did...shamefully, about 3 million more. Which is a travety and sorry punctuation on the blue states and those who support their candidates IMHO.
Texas and California pulled in a bunch!:
- TX 4,518,491
- CA 5,250,933
This is me holding my breath waiting for the MSM to report this...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.