99Tiger Wrote:

ccs178 Wrote:The common wisdom has always said that large voter turn outs favor Democrats. This is because the Democrats have fancied themselves as the populist party. We now know that to be wrong. A large voter turn out obviously favors the Republicans. Could it be that they are the populist party now or at least becoming the populist party? So, numbers are very important. What motivated so many more voters to take part in this election? Why did so many more vote for Bush? In 2000 both candidates received 50 million votes with Gore receiving slightly more, a little more than 500,000. After 4 years President Bush and the Republican party not only retained their voting base but increased it by almost a margin of 2-1 compared to Democratic gains. You said that you prefer percentages? Ok.

2000 popular vote percentages:
Bush - 47.87%
Gore - 48.38%

Difference = Gore +0.51%

2004 popular vote percentages:
Bush - 51%
Kerry - 48%

Difference = Bush +3%

...but you never responded to me pointing out that receiving the most votes of all time is a POINTLESS statistic. Comparing it to the 2000 election doesn't prove a point. I'll just provide a few numbers to make my point.

*In 1828, Andrew Jackson received a mere 647,286 votes...well short of GWB's 56,000,000...but it represented 56% of the popular vote...more impressive than GWB's 51%.

*In 1904, Theodore Roosevelt only received 7,623,486 votes...STILL well short of GWB's...but it was 56.4% of the popular vote.

*Let's not forget about the other Roosevelt...
1932 - 57.4% of the vote
1936 - 60.6%
1940 - 54.7%
1944 - 53.6%...and I believe he won all 4 elections by a larger margin (# of votes) than GWB...with fewer people!

*In 1972, Nixon took 60.7% of the votes and won by a margin of ~18 million votes...and yet he still didn't have as many votes as GWB this year!

I clicked on 7 election totals that ALL produced more convincing victories that Bush's victory...BASED ON THE PERCENTAGES. Raw numbers simply don't mean much...the concept isn't that hard to grasp. Any election that has a larger number of voters than any previous will have a good shot of the winner being able to say they received the largest number of votes of all time.

The numbers 100+ years ago don't mean a thing today. You are missing the whole point. The numbers are indicitive of a fundamental shift in our society. They underscore this shift.

A quote from the article this thread was originally about:

Quote:This election outcome should have been implausible, if not impossible. With a litany of complaints — bad economy, bad deficit, bad foreign war, bad gas prices — amplified by a national media that discarded any pretense of neutrality, a national opposition party should have won this election.

Yet, President Bush not only won, but enlarged his base and by a nearly 2-1 margin compared to the Democrats. That's what the numbers tell you. You can minimize that all you want, but it is simply denial.

99Tiger Wrote:

ccs178 Wrote:I never said that, but since you brought him up, consider this...the people have left DeLay in office while kicking Daschle to the curb. I find that amusing.

Daschle has to win an entire state...DeLay only has to win one uber-conservative district west of Houston, TX.

Daschle didn't seem to have a problem winning his state for nearly twenty years. That is until he took on the role of obstructionist. Then in the very next election, he's gone. Quite amusing.

RebelKev Wrote:Anyone have the feeling that if it was a liberal that got those numbers they'd be dancing all over these boards?????

Sour Grapes.

You Libs are out of touch. You can't win if you put the most liberal on the ticket(Kerry), any more than the Republicans can win by putting the most far right-wing person on the ticket. You guys are idiots because you actually BELIEVE Kerry is mainstream. :rolleyes:

For the last 4 years we've had to hear about the popular vote day in and day out. Yet, when President Bush wins the popular vote, and by a much greater margin than Gore did in 2000, all of a sudden mentioning numbers becomes pointless. :rolleyes:

ccs178 Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:Anyone have the feeling that if it was a liberal that got those numbers they'd be dancing all over these boards?????

Sour Grapes.

You Libs are out of touch. You can't win if you put the most liberal on the ticket(Kerry), any more than the Republicans can win by putting the most far right-wing person on the ticket. You guys are idiots because you actually BELIEVE Kerry is mainstream.  :rolleyes:

For the last 4 years we've had to hear about the popular vote day in and day out. Yet, when President Bush wins the popular vote, and by a much greater margin than Gore did in 2000, all of a sudden mentioning numbers becomes pointless. :rolleyes:

gotta give it to ya. ...of course, you're a southern moron....you know, like the liberal elites say we are.

.....and they wonder why they don't get elected.....Here's an idea, HOW ABOUT NOT CALLING US STUPID YOU DUMB ****S!!!!

ccs178 Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:Anyone have the feeling that if it was a liberal that got those numbers they'd be dancing all over these boards?????

Sour Grapes.

You Libs are out of touch. You can't win if you put the most liberal on the ticket(Kerry), any more than the Republicans can win by putting the most far right-wing person on the ticket. You guys are idiots because you actually BELIEVE Kerry is mainstream.  :rolleyes:

For the last 4 years we've had to hear about the popular vote day in and day out. Yet, when President Bush wins the popular vote, and by a much greater margin than Gore did in 2000, all of a sudden mentioning numbers becomes pointless. :rolleyes:

Conservatives, Libertarians 2
Liberals 0