Pres. Bush Vote Total Now Exceeds 62 Million (exceeding all pre-election estimates).

SOS websites | 12/10/2004 | calreaganfan

[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.

[Conspiracy Guy]

Sums it up pretty well.

[Grampa Dave]

We are proud, happy and ready to battle the lunatic libs, the Gay agenda pushers and their IslamoDumbo buddies the next four years!

[highflight]

belated thank you for the graph.

[beckysueb]

I know. Ya just can't have nothin!

[beckysueb]

And now they are trying to minimize Bush's win by calling it inconsequential.

[OKIEDOC]

If it is true that the MSM swung 15% of the vote for Hanoi John then the unbiased vote count could have been 71 million for Bush and 49 million for Kerry.

[Verginius Rufus]

Carter in 1976 got either a smidgen more than exactly 50% or just under...it may depend on whether it's a percentage of all votes cast or of all votes that were counted (excluding overvotes or other spoiled ballots), I'm not sure.

Apart from that, only Tilden, FDR, and LBJ have passed the 50% mark in popular votes among all the Democratic candidates since the Civil War. In Tilden's case, it was an election with a lot of shenanigans going on...in three Southern states it was hard to be sure who really had won, and if you could remove fraudulent ballots cast on the Democrat side or add in the black votes that weren't counted or were prevented from being cast, Tilden may have gotten less than 50%.

Cleveland won in 1884 with less than 50% of the popular vote, but with an electoral college majority thanks to carrying New York with about 1,000 votes to spare. Given the presence of the Tammany machine in New York City, it's possible that that was a stolen election.

[Reagan Man]

>>>>.... I frankly have a hard time understanding what you're talking about.

Either you're not paying attention, or you're playing dumb.

>>>>At no time have I ever denigrated Pres. Reagan's legacy.

I said you were undermining Reagan's legacy. If you had denigrated Reagan's legacy, you would have been booted off FR by now.

>>>>Why in the heck would I call myself "calreaganfan"!!

You've been here just over a month. I've had two run ins with you in that time frame and both have centered around you building up PresBush, while tearing down the Reagan legacy. Not a good start.

>>>>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!).

Since you keep repeating the same misleading characterizations, I can only assume you want to continue this pissing contest. Perhaps you want to start an all out flame war with me.

As I told you, Bush`s popular vote victory means jackshit. And just because the GOP picked up a few seats in the House and Senate, while historical, it means very little in the big picture. Very little.

>>>>Citing and celebrating these accomplishments does nothing to denigrate Pres. Reagan.

Celebrating Bush`s victory over Kerry is fine. Throwing misleading data into the face of the Reagan legacy is not fine. And besides, its been over a month since the reelection. Time to get back to business. Let's see Bush reverse his big governemnt Republicanism and advance a more conservative agenda.

>>>>The fact that LBJ was NOT running for re-election in 1964 is the key point.

No its not. I'm the one that brought up the issue and I couched it the way I saw fit. Until Bush did it in 2004, LBJ was the last sitting President to increase his party's majority and gain seats in both houses of Congress. That's what counts.

Now, if you want to continue this debate, bring up some new talking points, or move along.

[ChadGore]

I guess I need a new SIG

[ChadGore]

Re: PresBush43 was handed a GOP majority in the Congress when he came to office in 2001.

With all due respect, Bush 43 wasn't "handed" a House and Senate majority in 2001, he led the party to a federal tri-fecta at the ballot box in 2001, 2002, and 2004.

That's no easy task.

[Reagan Man]

>>>> ... Bush 43 wasn't "handed" a House and Senate majority in 2001, he led the party to a federal tri-fecta at the ballot box in 2001, 2002, and 2004.

Sure he was.

The GOP held Congress three election cycles before Bush came into office. The facts are quite clear. When Bush won the 2000 election, he lost seats in the 107th Congress. Two in the House and five in the Senate. Facts are stubborn little boogers.

[Condor51]

Did they count the 200,000 dead people who voted in Chicago?

With all due respect, those people were not "dead" - just here illegally.

And I'm series.
After the vote totals were published I did some quick math based on the 2000 census. However as the census does not distinguish "citizen" from "resident" only "adults over 18", I had to do some 'guesstimating'. I was conservative with my guesstimates - VERY conservative, and discounting illegals and felons I came up with a ±70% voter turnout for Chicago!

That on face value is ludicrous. Lines would have been blocks long and it would have been on every TV channel - which it WASN'T. And to boot, one fellow Freeper found that in one Chicago neighborhood (Englewood) 98% of 'adults' voted. Understand that Englewood is Chi's murder capitol AND consists of burned our hulks and vacant lots. People who can FLEE it, not move into it. And of the adults in that neighborhood, ±50% are FELONS (according to Jesse Jackson). So if the dems want to look into vote fraud, I know exactly where to start.

btw, your 200K is on the low side. It was more like 300K who should NOT have voted in Chicago.

[Barset]

"Thank God we were able to energize the base...we can thank the Swifties, our own activism..."

Thanks also to Chris Matthews' assault on Michelle Malkin and his barking boyo silencing of John O'Neil; Huge thanks to Lawrence O'Donnell.

Thanks to ex-seminarian, multi-millionaire movie mogul Michael Moore, and to former President Carter for allowing Moore to sit next to him in the presidential box at the Democrat convention for all the world to see.

Thanks to Dan Rather, CBS, the New York Times.

Thanks to Whoopie Goldberg, "the heart and soul of America."

Thanks to Al Gore and Ted Kennedy. America was listening.

Thanks to the DNC for letting Al Sharpton exceed the time limit at the Dem convention so he could show America the core values of the Dems. America was watching.

Thanks to the unknow CIA guy who left his hat in Kerry's briefcase on that memorable Christmas in Cambodia.

Most of all, thanks to the less than ten percent of Dem caucuses who gave the country, "Primal John," with his head-case fantasies and his howling emptiness.

For all of these, and more, we thank Thee.

[calreaganfan]

"Throwing misleading data into the face of the Reagan legacy is not fine. And besides, its been over a month since the reelection. Time to get back to business. Let's see Bush reverse his big governemnt Republicanism"

The mask finally comes off! It's not that I'm "undermining Reagan's legacy", it's that you don't like Pres. Bush. Now I see why you've been throwing around phoney accusations. I asked you to cite ONE example where I was "obfuscating" the facts about this election. I'm still waiting for your answer. Now you state that I'm "throwing misleading data into the face of the Reagan legacy" (LOL!!) Again, please cite ONE example where I've used misleading data.

It's hilarious that you're accusing Pres. Bush of "big government Republicanism" because that's exactly the same criticism that was directed at Pres. Reagan. Gov't spending and deficits soared during the Reagan presidency. In fact, gov't spending increased at a faster rate under Reagan than under Pres. GW Bush. The reason I stated earlier that Pres. GW Bush is the real heir to the Reagan legacy is because both Reagan and Bush believed that it's more important to protect the nation (Reagan increased defense spending to counter the Soviets; Bush has fought a war against Islamic terrorism) and cut taxes to spur economic growth (Reagan encountered a nasty recesssion; Bush faced a recession and the 9/11 attacks). Your ignorance of Pres. Reagan's policies is shocking. I'm beginning to think you're more of a "Flim-Flam Man" than a "Reagan Man".

Lastly, they're still counting the votes!! You may want to move on from the election because you don't like the fact that Pres. Bush received over 62 million votes(!), but the fact is that the ballots are still being counted. When all is said and done, there will be no denying the fact that Pres. Bush has achieved an historic personal and Party triumph in the 2004 election, and it was accomplished in the face of the most blatant media bias (using forged documents is just one example) that any presidential candidate has ever encountered. The MSM didn't like Reagan, but they absolutely detest Pres. Bush.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

Valley girl:

Chuh! Fer sure, like, these Dems need to get ovvver it, already. Totally!

Surfer guy:

(Leans on surfboard. Nods head in agreement.)

[Reagan Man]

>>>>The mask finally comes off! It's not that I'm "undermining Reagan's legacy", it's that you don't like Pres. Bush.

First you try to undermine the Reagan legacy and now your making juvenile accusations that have nothing to do with the issue of this debate. Frankly, that wasn't my idea about you bringing some new talking points to the debate. Engaging in asinine rhetoric definitely says you want a flame war and for a newbee, that could be the kiss of death.

>>>>I asked you to cite ONE example where I was "obfuscating" the facts about this election.

I'm getting very tired of explaining the same thing to you, over and over. So, for the last time, open your eyes and PAY ATTENTION. You interjected yourself into this debate at RE:#83 and came after me in defense of comments made by another FReeper. You took offense to my defense of Reagan at RE:#76.

Listen up! While voter turn out was historically high in the 2004 election, there was nothing astounding, amazing or remarkable about Bush`s victory. Citing numbers of voters in a fraudulant manner as you have done, is deadwrong. And when it comes at the cost of the Reagan legacy, you're gonna hear from me.

Several other FReepers have also taken you to task on this thread, over your exaggeration of Bush`s victory in relation to the Reagan's landslides of the 1980`s. But you still don't get it.

You told Mad_Tom_Rackham, quote, "You're completely missing the point." NO HE'S NOT! YOU'RE MISSING THE POINT. And the more you miss the point, the more you come across like someone willing to exaggerate the Bush victory in 2004, at the cost of the Reagan legacy.

This Bush/GOP victory was a hard fought political battle and the good guys won. What we don't need is to lsoe sight of the ultimate objective, the goal of conservatism triumphing over liberalism. President Reagan set the course for the Republican party in 1980. Newt Gingrich advanced the ball for conservatism and the GOP with the historic GOP takeover of Congress in 1994. PresBush has a rare oportunity to further advance the conservative agenda. I hope and pray he does, but there is NO guarantee.

>>>>It's hilarious that you're accusing Pres. Bush of "big government Republicanism"...

The facts speak for them selves. In 2000, PresBush campaigned on providing a 10-year, $150 million prescription drug program to give a helping hand to elderly poor. That turned into a 10-year, trillion dollar prescription drug program for all of America's seniors. Including Bill Gates! The largest program expansion since Medicare itself and the taxpayers got the bill. As a conservative, I call that, BIG GOVERNMENT REPUBLICANISM.

In 2000 Bush ran on reforming the federal Department of Education. This was his pet project. Bush turned the writing of the education reform bill over to the liberal Senator Ted Kennedy. The taxpayers got the bill for the largest increases in education spending by any President in history. As a conservative, I call that, BIG GOVERNMENT REPUBLICANISM.

Ronald Reagan wanted to abolish the federal Department of Education and several other high profile departements and agencies. He didn't have the political clout in Congress to get the job done. OTOH. President Reagan never dreamed of proposing an expansion of the federal bureaucracy, as PresBush has done. Reagan did negotiate a proposal with Tip O'Neil and the Democrats, that would allow historical tax reform, massive spending increases to rebuilt the US military and cuts in non-defense related discreationary spending. A prudent and conservative policy agenda. Deficits were placed on the backburner.

>>>>GW Bush is the real heir to the Reagan legacy ...

Never said Bush wasn't the heir to the Reagan legacy. Bush can be very Reaganesque. But Bush is not Reagan. Period. There will never be another Ronald Reagan.

>>>>I'm beginning to think you're more of a "Flim-Flam Man" than a "Reagan Man".

More ad hominem responses. Ho-hum.

>>>>You may want to move on from the election ...

I want to move on, but with troublemakers like you hanging around, undermining the Reagan legacy, my job is far from over.

President Bush is doing a remarkable job in the WoT. His three tax cuts and extensions were the right policy decision to make. His support for pro-life issues is gratifying. His expansion of the federal bureaucracy and his immigration reform proposal, aka. guest worker/amnesty proposal, are wrong headed policies. No conservative in his/her right mind would ever support such crapola. Bush should have learned from the Reagan immigartion reform of 1986 and stayed away from any amnesty proposal.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

I'm still amazed that every county in the state of Nebraska voted to re-elect President Bush.

With all of those cities, e.g. Lincoln, Omaha, etc., you figure that the dork from Mass. would at the very least, carry a single county in that state.

I suppose it just proves the ineptitude of the Kerry candidacy.

[CyberAnt]

"proves the ineptitude of the Kerry candidacy"

Partly! The other issue was the arrogance of the DNC/Kerry group. The elitists did not believe people would vote for Bush; proving once again that misunderestimating Bush is not a good move.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

It was definitely a bizarre strategy on their part.

I remember seeing tons of Kerry cronies, in addition to their counterparts in the quasi-legal PACs set up by Soros, wandering around NYC...AFTER THE DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION!

I've never received a satisfactory explanation as to why they were bothering registering potential voters in a region which they knew they were going to carry by-at the very least-forty percent in the upcoming presidential election.

[Reagan Man]

>>>>Gov't spending and deficits soared during the Reagan presidency.

Government spending and deficits have soared under the Bush presidency too.

The higher spending under Reagan is directly attributed to the President's massive spending to rebuild the military. Spending on defense as a percentage of the overall budget were: 24.8 in 1982, 26.0 in 1983, 26.7 in 1984, 26.7 in 1985, 27.6 in 1986, 28.1 in 1987, 27.3 in 1988 and 26.5 in 1989.

We see an entirely different picture with Bush43`s budgets. Under Bush43, spending on defense as a percentage of the overall budget were: 17.3 in 2002, 18.8 in 2003, 19.6 in 2004, 18.8 (est) in 2005 and 17.6 (est) in 2006.

During Reagan's eight years in office, spending on Human Resources (social welfare) as a percentage of the overall budget were: 52.1 in 1982, 52.7 in 1983, 50.7 in 1984, 49.9 in 1985, 48.6 in 1986, 50.0 in 1987, 50.1 in 1988 and 49.7 in 1989.

Again, under Bush43 we see an entirely different picture. Under Bush43, spending on Human Resources (social welfare) as a percentage of the overall budget were: 65.5 in 2002, 65.7 in 2003, 64.6 in 2004, 65.3 (est) in 2005 and 66.8 (est) 2006.

When it came to budgetary spending, Reagan's priorities were more on defense related expenditures. Whereas under Bush43, priorities are in the area of social welfare spending. BIG difference.

Also Reagan managed to cut discretionary spending during his first three years in office. Bush43 hasn't been able to hold spending in line, or control the out of control GOP Congress.