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's fault???
No, no, no!!! It is OBVIOUSLY Karl Rove and Diebold's fault.
Clearly, you have not been reading the DUmmie FUnnies.
Which one of the words "MoveOn" do you think they don't understand?
Nonetheless, your insistence that Bush's election victory is somehow a magificent popular acheivement, vis a vis Reagan's 1980 and 1984 elections leaves me baffled.
I have presented statistics, which you have conveniently ignored, and I frankly tire of arguing with someone who's penchant is to repeatedly ignore the facts presented in counter arguments while re-asserting their previous position as though those facts never mattered, or switching to other facets of the argument (which you have also repeatedly done). This behavior, BTW, is what irritates me most when arguing with liberals.
Let me leave you with this thought (setting aside arguments about population increase, turnout, GOP gains in the congress, etc.):
If politician "A" wins an election by a spread of 18% of the popular vote and 95% of the electoral vote,
And if politician "B" wins an election by a spread of 3% of the popular vote and 6% of the electoral vote,
Who won the greater victory?
If Kerry had been elected and thank god he was not he would have been the first communist elected as president of our great nation.
Bump.
And the DU's somehow think they still can win by recounting OH!
Oh that was toooo spooky. I'm a big Johnny Mercer fan, and I had just this week made a resolution to get him into my music collection!
Especially to rub in the faces of all those downtrodden Dems that are wandering around these days.
Say, you're lucky after all... those insurance men can't call. There's a sunnyside to every situation!
Official US Census 2000 population on April 1st, 2000, was 281,421,906. Current estimate for December 12th, 2004 is 294,956,035 (at 1:49 AM). That last number would give a rough estimate of 294.7 million on election day. So 122 million over 294.7 million is 41.4% of the total population voted for President. And 21.0% of the total population voted for Dubya. Not bad.
"Nonetheless, your insistence that Bush's election victory is somehow a magificent popular acheivement, vis a vis Reagan's 1980 and 1984 elections leaves me baffled."
You must get baffled easily. It's not me that's insisting "that Bush's election victory is somehow a magificent [sic] popular acheivement [sic], vis a vis Reagan's 1980 and 1984 elections". The numbers speak for themselves. This whole thing got started because "Reagan Man" reacted in a defensive and irrational manner to the simple fact that Pres. Bush shattered the popular vote record that had been previously held by Pres. Reagan. The fact that Pres. Bush broke Reagan's record by nearly 8 million votes does not diminish Reagan's landslide victories in 1980 and 1984. Recognizing that Pres. Bush also inspired an historic voter turnout and helped to achieve congressional gains that no Republican President had accomplished since the 1920s is also not a denigration of the Reagan legacy. It's a simple statement of facts. Can we please leave it at that.
"Citing numbers of voters in a fraudulant manner as you have done, is deadwrong."
Again with the false accusations. All the vote count numbers that I've posted have been completely accurate as well as the factual statements that 1) Pres. Bush obliterated Reagan's popular vote record; 2) Pres. Bush inspired an historic voter turnout (the largest EVER since the voting rules were changed in 1972); and 3) Pres. Bush helped to achieve Republican Party victories that no GOP President had accomplished since the 1920s. These are the facts. You will just have learn to deal with them.
Uh oh... there will now be more gnashing of teeth by the liberals. Of course, that means dentists will start to see an increase in income, so all is not lost ;)
"there was nothing astounding, amazing or remarkable about Bush`s victory."
I wonder how many FReepers will agree with you that there is "nothing remarkable" about Pres. Bush garnering more than 62 million votes. I don't think there were many FReepers who expected Pres. Bush to increase his vote count by TWELVE MILLION VOTES from the 2000 election. I believe both the 62 million vote total and the 12 million vote increase are quite remarkable, and the vast majority of FReeper comments that I've received agree with this assessment.
"I'm still amazed that every county in the state of Nebraska voted to re-elect President Bush."
Please don't use the word "amazed" when describing Pres. Bush's victory. The pompous "Reagan Man" insists that "there was nothing astounding, amazing or remarkable about Bush`s victory".
I'm just surprised that a state which continually re-elected Bob Kerry-to say nothing of the impressive political career built by William Jennings Bryan-could be so staunchly Republican in its current voting habits.
That is huge - because of the 294m not all are of voter age or eligible to vote.
Thanks for the figures.
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.