I am reading numeorous articles from liberal pundits decrying that President Bush's 51-48% victory was not a mandate. <br><br>Of course, back when Clinton won in 92 and 96 (neither time with even close to 50%,) we all heard about the "mandate for change."<br><br>
I guess a "mandate" is a sub-50% win.....must be that new math they teach at schools these days, I never could get the hang of it. When I went to school Math was right or wrong, now there are varying shades of grey - confuses the heck out of me!!<br><br>
_________________________ I used to think it was terrible that life was unfair. Then I thought what if life were fair and all of the terrible things that happen came because we really deserved them? Now I take comfort in the general unfairness and hostility of the universe.
i just found that when Reagan won reelection, his party picked up 15 seats in the house, when Clinton won reelection, his party picked up 9 seats in the house, and this year dubya picked up four seats. all attributable to gerrymandering in texas (see tom delay). quite the impressive victory, eh? <br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato
You're right it wasn't impressive. Please keep along that line of thought for November 2006 and 2008. Please. Your right it wasn't impressive and 2006 will be better. Just keep doing what you're doing. Please. I'm glad you brought that up making me realize it wasn't impressive. I agree, you're right. I'm telling you you're right so please believe you're right and please tell all your democratic friends about this and how unimpressive it was. Nothing needs to change, stay the course. Please.<br>
Dean, you're creating extra arguments for me to defend and i am not up to that challenge, but i'll address part of what you mentioned. let me tell you what i saw in this thread. Bryan started a topic by pointing to clinton and drawing an analogy. i was merely providing some more facts about that clinton election in comparison to dubya. <br><br>obviously, you think it's okay for bryan to make his point (not too unlike my point) because i have yet to see you attack what he is writing. however, i try to provide a counter argument and i am accused of using the thinking that caused democrats to lose the election and the thinking that represents everything that is wrong. i am at a loss to understand this argument. to tell you the truth, i think dubya is entitled to push his agenda and to reward the people who voted for him (or the people who funded his victory more likely). i wouldn't fault him for a second for doing so because that is what the victor does. an impressive victory is not necessary, fwiw. i may not like it, but i understand the game. i just don't think the victory is impressive in the sense that it showed any kind of commanding victory where phrases like "mandate" are appropriate. it was an extremely close election and the state of ohio could have turned everything. the loser received more votes than the most popular president of my lifetime in his reelection landslide victory (reagan).<br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.