Posted on 12/10/2004 5:24:36 PM PST by calreaganfan
The conventional wisdom of the political punditry has been proven wrong again. A huge national voter turnout was thought to favor the Democrat candidate, but Pres. Bush's national popular vote count from the Nov. 2, 2004 general election has now exceeded 62 million votes. As of 12/10/04, Pres. Bush has received 62,019,003 votes. The states of NY and PA have certified their official results in the past two days which pushed Pres. Bush's vote count over the 62 million mark. CA will certify its results tomorrow, but almost all CA votes are already included in the Bush total (by obtaining vote counts from CA county websites). Only MN, ME and a few other states have yet to certify their official results.
Bush beat Kerry by better than 2-1 in four states: Idaho, Nebraska, Utah, and Wyoming. Kerry didn't have a 2-1 advantage in any state (although he had more than that ratio in the District of Columbia).
Eat it DU, eat it..... tastes bitter doesn't it?? bitter like ear wax....... taste it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You should have seen ours (twin orange tabby sisters) when we treated them for fleas a few months ago with the latest development. This was a tube of gook that was squeezed out onto their necks, at the base of their skulls. This stuff then spread down their backs, making their fur stand up and kind of greasy. They couldn't lick it off, and they refused to help each other (as they often do). But they did skulk around for two+ weeks leering at us, with ears peeled back and low to the floor, with that "you did this to us?" look. They were really PO'd, but the flea treatment worked great!
Voter turnout for Bush was energized in part by a fear of a Kerry candidacy. (My brother, his wife, and a few in-laws registered and voted for the first time in their lives because they were appalled at the thought of a Kerry Presidency.) Can you imagine the Republican turnout if Hillary runs?
That's ridiculous. Bush triumphed over adversity, but he set no records in doing so. Besides, the MSM, CBS, the UN and the NYTimes were all against Reagan too and considered him the enemy. Yet Reagan won in two landslide victories and changed the course of the GOP and of America itself.
62 million votes for Dubya and incredible voter turn out. Dubya has a mandate. Everybody knows this but the rats. The rats did everything they could to lie cheat and steal. They lost. The lost BIG TIME!
Let's get it out of our heads that Bush won an impressive victory. He barely squeaked through. Yes, he had a lot going against him. But he had a lot going for him, too.
Yes, he got a massive number of votes. But so did Kerry.
The bottom line is this: there are a lot of stupid people out there who believe Democratic propaganda. There is no guarantee -- none -- that they won't win next time.
If Hillary pulls off this tough-on-immigration scam, she'll probably be the favorite in the '08 general.
Let's wake up and smell the coffee.
"Bush beat Kerry and beat him good and boy have I been happy ..."
You and me both!!
Remember how the day after the election some sleazoid leftist British newspaper (yes, I'm being redundant here) wondered "How can 59 miilion people be so dumb?" Now that Kerry's vote has reached 59 million, I see the answer to their question.
You may notice I did not state the record was in achieving victory over the MSM, though I find it extremely notable in the 24/7 news climate we now live in.
The record was in achieving a second straight Republican gain in House and Senate. A MAJORITY in each. To which Bush himself is owed a great deal of credit. Some of these people would not have won without his coattails. This is something Reagan did not achieve. This is something Clinton did not achieve. It dates back at least half a century and IS a remarkable record that establishes a mandate.
I have not and will NEVER seek to discredit Reagan. I noted his record in achieving electoral landslide, to which he is rightly applauded. Nor am I, as was a child, as knowledgeable about the obstacles he faced to gain election. Though I am quite aware the MSM was against his presidency.
You will note I cited FRAUD that directly was meant to alter the course of a presidential election. You will note I cited direct interference in the release of highly suspect sensitive date released directly from the U.N. to the NYT's. If the obstacles Reagan faced were as blatantly corrupt and illegal, I have yet to hear it cited. It may well be the case, but as of yet I have failed to read or hear any commentary from conservatives across the board comparing this aspect to 2004. Extreme bias and antagonism is not the same as what occured with Dan Rather and the ammo dump leak. You will note I purposely Left F-9/11 and Kitty Kelley and their ilk out of discussion for the very reason their presence IS comparable, to my knowledge, of what Reagan encountered. Same with Global protests, etc..
Regardless, I fail to understand the need from EITHER side to discredit the achievements of Reagan OR Bush. Neither is diminished by noting their separate successful accomplishments either in office or during elective periods.
Bush never did achieve the electoral landslide Reagan personally experienced. Reagan never did achieve the Republican majority held by both House and Senate during his presidency, as Bush has. Reagan helped revitalize the Republican party and set its course. Bush has helped build the party into a majority. Each man has played a significant role in the course of America, the world, and yes, the GOP.
I have no desire to argue which man is "better", I will not be drawn into that frivolous argument. I'm proud of both of them. History will judge them accordingly.
The state where, last time I checked, a herd of psychotic, disillusioned socialists were calling for a ludicrous reassessment of the finalized vote totals.
Am I missing something here, or are these Dem. Party stooges a bunch of hypocritical bastards?
Well we did increase our Republican wins in the House and Senate.That was good...This is the first 0ver 50% popular vote win since 1988 I believe...The win is not comparable in percentage,of course ..other factors are very nice,though.(coattails)
Music to my ears. No mandate though of course! LOL
I'm with you on that. If you reread the posts in question, you'll see the obvious attempts to undermine Reagan's election legacy.
The 2004 GOP gains in the House and Senate were small, but significant. But Bush didn't make the GOP the majority party. Newt Gingrich accomplished that feat in 1994, when he advanced the Contract With America and took control of the House for the first time in 40 years.
When Reagan was elected in 1980 and reelected in 1984, his two landslide victories gave him a mandate and translated into GOP control of the Senate for the first time in almost 30 years. That GOP Senate majority lasted the next six years (1981-1986). The GOP also increased its House seats in 1981, from 158 to 194. A huge 34 seat pickup thanks to Reagan coattails. Substantial for sure and a glimpse of things to come. When you toss into that mix, southern conservative House Democrats who sided with Reagan, it gave the President the majority he needed to pass his economic reform and recovery plan that included the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, Tax Reform Act of 1986, his efforts at starting to rebuild the military and to cut discretionary spending during his first three years in office.
>>>>I have no desire to argue which man is "better", I will not be drawn into that frivolous argument.
IMO, it's not frivolous to debate the facts. I'll defend Reagan's record against the revisionists, all day long. And proud to do so.
the numbers add up to both a resounding victory for W but also indicate that there are a ton of numb nuts that were swayed by all the MSM and other lib cards stacked up against W. It's frightening to think if the Dems put up a candidate with any common appeal(who wasn't a complete lurch like jerk with a jerk for a wife to top it off), they could have won. Fortunately, ther are no Dems who fit the bill that their disease minded core base would accept.
"You still don't get it. You have engaged in distortions on this thread and have attempted to undermine the legacy of a great President"
What in the heck are you talking about?!? Since when have I "attempted to undermine the legacy of a great President"? I guess I vastly understated the case when I said you were being needlessly defensive about Pres. Reagan. It's clear now that you're actually off your rocker. No one on this site, least alone me, is attempted to "undermine" Reagan's legacy. I worked for Pres. Reagan when he was Governor of CA and in all of his presidential campaigns so I take a back seat to no one in my support of the former President. To point out Pres. Bush's remarkable personal and party electoral achievements and to note that he shattered Pres. Reagan's popular vote record by nearly 8 million votes (!) does nothing to diminish Reagan's record. Your continuing implications to the contrary are positively Stalinist.
"First off, you're obfuscating the 2004 election returns to make Bush`s victory seem larger then it was."
Please cite ONE example of where I've "obfuscated" anything about the 2004 election. I've been extremely factual in everything that I've posted. In fact, I've done a better job than the AP which is nearly 1.5 million votes in Pres. Bush's popular vote total. You may not like the fact that Pres. Bush obliterated Reagan's vote record, but facts are facts.
"While its true that the GOP did pick up seats in the House and Senate, something that hadn't been done since LBJ in 1964, its also true, Reagan's party leadership and election day coattails actually gave the GOP control of the Senate for six years."
You obviously need a refresher course in American history. Pres. Bush is the first President since FDR in 1936 to gain votes in the House and Senate while running for re-election. LBJ never even ran for re-election!! Pres. Bush is the first Republican President since Calvin Coolidge to gain seats in both Houses of Congress while running for re-election. This did NOT happen when Reagan was running for re-election in 1984. Also, Reagan was no help to his party in 1982 when Republicans performed extremely poorly at the polls (losing approx. 30 House seats). This stands in start contrast to Pres. Bush's first off-year election in 2002 when Republicans gained seats in BOTH Houses of Congress (after Pres. Bush campaigned tirelessly around the country). Those are the facts. Now get back on your medication.
It's interesting when you look at Bush's popular vote totals of 50.75% for 2004. Outside of LBJ's landslide victory in 1964 and the four elections of FDR, no Democrat presidential candidate has won the presidency getting that high a percentage of the popular vote total, going back to Franklin Pierce with 50.84%, in 1852. Samual Tilden garnered 50.97% in 1876, but lost by one electoral vote to Republican Rutherford B. Hayes who garnered 47.95% of the popular vote.
dude, its over 20 years later
the population has grown by almost 50mil since then, its really not a huge shock the loser in a relatively close election with high turnout 20 years later would break the record
I don't think it was a loudly sounding GOP victory, but the Democrats sure are quiet. I'll take it.
I'm not. I had him winning Wisconsin too though and I'm disappointed I missed that, its the only state I got wrong.
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.