[Future Snake Eater]

Clinton won on a 43% plurality -- 57% of the vote was AGAINST him. This so diluted Clinton's mandate that two years later the Republican Revolution happened.

A minority of the country elected Bill Clinton who immediately implemented "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", raised taxes significantly, and pushed for socialized medicine from the First Lady, of all people. Let's also not forget other atrocities such as Waco and Mogadishu.

THAT is why the 1994 mid-term elections happened the way they did--the typical liberal inclination to overreach, not because of some "diluted mandate" fantasy.

So, let's repeat history and have a minority of the country re-elect Obama! We'll totally win if we lose!

[Finny]

So, let's repeat history and have a minority of the country re-elect Obama! We'll totally win if we lose!

And if you elect Romney, we'll totally lose if we win.

Hillary and Bill were pikers with regard to health care -- Romney succeeded where they failed! And you seriously think voting FOR that is "winning" because it's not scarecrow made-of-straw Obama?

I stand by my premise: weaken the anti-conservative winner's mandate -- it's the only way to help conservatives in Congress.

[Finny]

One more thing, yes or no: do you think the Republican Revolution would have happened if Clinton had won a majority and immediately implemented "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", raised taxes significantly, and pushed for socialized medicine from the First Lady, of all people. Let's also not forget other atrocities such as Waco and Mogadishu ...?

If his vote count indicated a mandate to do those things, do you think the 1994 mid-terms would have turned out the same? Yes or no?