Did they zot the troll? Shoot, I was having fun! I NEVER HAVE ANY FUN.Yep! He's dead, Jim!
Posted on 12/10/2004 5:24:36 PM PST by calreaganfan
Correct and you aren't "missing" anything!
It most certainly did. In fact, in some Dem counties, I would expect they were able to exceed 100% of the eligible vote. Now THAT'S motivation - don't vote once, vote twice, and twice again, and then get dead Uncle Harry's name on a proxy ballot, for good measure.
Wait - this ISN'T the Ukraine?
There's a difference between the re-election of Reagan and that of Bush. Reagan won because people voted for Reagan, in an era of LM control. Bush won because many voted against sKerry in an era where the LM went all out for the Dem and were upset by some guys sailing by on a fifty foot patrol craft. And don't forget FR. Don't forget the 'blogs', or talk-radio, almost everywhere MOR or conservative. You need to give the credit where it's due. Otherwise, Bush tried to lose the campaign. He seemed immature in the debates, though he clobbered Kerry on the answers, and substance. He talked about 'gay partnerships' just weeks before 'gay marriage' was voted down on eleven separate ballots. Ann Coulter sarcastically called Karl Rove, the 'boy genius'. Bush refers to him admiringly as, the 'architect', shades of the masonic adoration of the great 'architect'. Despite his own efforts, Bush was swept in by 'values voters' who did admire his otherwise consistent pre-election stance, and his performance as CinC as particularly contrasted with Kerry's clear incapacity to lead in that role.
Personal attacks are uncalled for, bucko.
First off, I was responding to another Freeper and you butted in. Remember.
>>>>ReaganMan, I don't know why you are so defensive about Pres. Reagan.
At this point, the gloves came off. I remember my last run in with you. Now, if you want to defend what another FReeper says, then you have to take the heat. But you weren't totally silent.
>>>>The fact that Pres. Bush, who received less than 51% of the popular vote, has broken Reagan's record by nearly 8 million votes is truly astounding.
and
>>>> ... the fact that Pres. Bush has exceeded Pres. Reagan's vote record by 7.6 million votes while garnering only 50.8% of the popular vote is truly amazing.
Astounding. Amazing. As I pointed out, I did't think so.
>>>>You may not like the fact that Pres. Bush obliterated Reagan's vote record, but facts are facts.
It ain't worth jackshit! As I pointed out to you, Reagan's victories were landslides. Reagan beat Carter by 8.4 million votes. Reagan beat Mondale by 16.8 million votes. Reagan won both times with electoral landslides.
Anyone with half a brain knows that over the 20 year period in question, the US population went up by some 60-65 million more people. That means a lot more people are going to vote. DUH!
>>>>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!!
I never said anything about "reelection". It's obvious you need a refresher course in reading comprehension. In 1964, LBJ was the last sitting President to be elected and have his party increase their majority in both houses of Congress. He had a two seat pickup in the Senate, 66 to 68 and a 36 seat pickup in the House, 259 to 295.
There was good reason why Reagan was no help to the Republicans running for reelection in the House in 1982. The nation was in a deep recession and economic recovery was months away. In his 1985 landslide victory, Reagan's coattails helped the GOP hold onto the Senate and increase their House seats by 16.
PresBush43 was handed a GOP majority in the Congress when he came to office in 2001. Reagan didn't have that luxury. Reagan had to form a coalition of Republicans and conservative Democrats to get his policy agenda implimented. If you really had worked for Reagan, you would have known that. I doubt you ever did.
"I don't have time to do the research, but percentage wise, Bush won a sqeaker (thanks be to God!), but Reagan won a landlside. So let's get off the "GW won more votes than RR" schtick. It's pure hogwash."
You're completely missing the point. Of course I realize that eventually, due to population growth, Pres. Reagan's popular vote record would be broken. I'm merely pointing out that it's remarkable that Pres. Bush broke Reagan's record by nearly 8 million votes even though Pres. Bush received 8% less of the popular vote (51% vs. 59%). The growth in the voting-age population (VAP) over the last 20 years is not sufficient to account for this feat. What accounts for Pres. Bush's record-breaking popular vote total of over 62 million votes is the HUGE turnout of the Republican base who were inspired by Pres. Bush's leadership through adversity. This is reflected in the percent of the VAP who turned out in 2004 as compared to 1984. In 2004, the voter turnout was close to 60% of VAP. In 1984, the turnout was only 53.1% of VAP. Pres. Bush inspired the biggest voter turnout since 1968. When you consider the fact that 18-to-21 year-olds (who have the lowest voter turnout) were not allowed to vote prior to 1972, the VAP turnout for Pres. Bush in 2004 is even more remarkable.
"At this point, the gloves came off. I remember my last run in with you."
Reagan Man, I frankly have a hard time understanding what you're talking about. At no time have I ever denigrated Pres. Reagan's legacy. Why in the heck would I call myself "calreaganfan"!! My two comments that you cited were both in praise of Pres. Bush's electoral achievements. You inexplicably assume they are attacks on Reagan's legacy. The fact that Pres. Bush has achieved an enormous popular vote count (far exceeding all pre-election predictions) and broken Reagan's record by a wide margin is something worth celebrating (as Reagan would!). The fact that Pres. Bush has also helped to increase the number of Republicans in the House and Senate in both elections of his presidency is something that is truly historic. Citing and celebrating these accomplishments does nothing to denigrate Pres. Reagan.
P.S.: The fact that LBJ was NOT running for re-election in 1964 is the key point. When running for re-election, the President's party usually suffers at the polls as the electorate often desires change. That's why the achievement by Pres. Bush and the Republican Party has not occurred since the 1920s (for the GOP). Not only was Pres. Johnson not running for re-election, he was still the beneficiary of a lot of public sympathy resulting from JFK's assassination, and the Dems had the benefit of running against an opposing party whose presidential candidate was portrayed as a right-wing extremist.
HELLO! Does the fact that the US population in 1984 was 237 million and today it is 295 million mean anything here???!!!
What's so amazing that Bush beat Reagan's record with the "small aid" of an additional 58 MILLION people living in the US?
"HELLO! Does the fact that the US population in 1984 was 237 million and today it is 295 million mean anything here???!!!
What's so amazing that Bush beat Reagan's record with the "small aid" of an additional 58 MILLION people living in the US?"
See comment #126 for your answer. The increase in voting-age population (VAP) alone does not account for Pres. Bush's stunning popular vote total. If that were the case, then why didn't the Sr. Bush or Clinton or Gore break Pres. Reagan's record. As I posted earlier, Pres. Bush shattered the popular vote record by nearly 8 million votes because he inspired the greatest voter turnout since 1968. In fact, Pres. Bush inspired the greatest voter turnout EVER under the new rules in place since 1972. Considering that the ranks of the VAP are now swelled by millions of 18-to-21 year-olds who are the least likely to vote, the 60% VAP turnout in 2004 is historic. By comparison, only 53% turned out in Reagan's re-election in 1984.
Oops. Should have referred you to Comment #125 -- not #126.
I have NO idea how they got the cat to wear the citrus.
I figure the cat had little choice.
"In fact, Pres. Bush inspired the greatest voter turnout EVER under the new rules in place since 1972. Considering that the ranks of the VAP are now swelled by millions of 18-to-21 year-olds who are the least likely to vote, the 60% VAP turnout in 2004 is historic. By comparison, only 53% turned out in Reagan's re-election in 1984."
I should also point out that because of the huge voter turnout in 2004, Pres. Bush and the Republicans are helped enormously in their ability to rightly claim a mandate from the voters. When 60% of the nation turns out at the polls to hand you the first majority vote since 1988, Pres. Bush has earned much more political capital than, for example, Bill Clinton, who was re-elected in 1996 when only 49.1% of the country bothered to vote.
They really need to just get over it.
For those of you who are downplaying Pres. Bush's record vote total, I suggest you compare 2004 to 1996. Just eight years ago, Bill Clinton received only 1% less of the popular vote than Pres. Bush, yet Pres. Bush has received 15 million more votes than Clinton in 1996!! That puts Pres. Bush's awesome accomplishment in perspective!
AmericaUnited,
See also Comment #133. The supposedly very popular Bill Clinton, when running for re-election just 8 years ago, received FIFTEEN MILLION less votes than Pres. Bush even though they achieved roughly the same % of the national popular vote (Clinton just under 50%; Pres. Bush just under 51%).
True, as I've said, the KEY STATISTIC is the voter turnout percentage, not the raw vote total which is meaningless.
hahahaaa! :^D
Did they zot the troll? Shoot, I was having fun! I NEVER HAVE ANY FUN.Yep! He's dead, Jim!
The state where, last time I checked, a herd of psychotic, disillusioned socialists were calling for a ludicrous reassessment of the finalized vote totals.Some are seeking phychological help. Others are taking more drastic steps.
And the 144,000 dead voting in Philadelphia.
This news makes my day happy.
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.
