Gay Patriot Header Image

Just a reminder . . .

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 3:43 am - November 2, 2005.
Filed under: General,National Politics

. . . that one year ago today, George W. Bush was re-elected with a majority of the popular vote to a second four-year term as president of the United States.

UPDATE: Those of our critics have commented about the closeness of the vote in last fall’s election should note that since the (national) popular vote has been tallied (in presidential elections), only two Democrats in U.S history have won a second (in the case of FDR, second, third and fourth) term with a majority of the popular vote. And it was 104 years between Andrew Jackson’s (1832) re-election and FDR’s (1936).

Share

98 Comments

  1. By the smallest margin of popular votes in US History….

    Comment by Jody — November 2, 2005 @ 4:00 am - November 2, 2005

  2. 11-02-1948 Truman defeats Dewey.

    The science of polling not yet refined.

    Comment by Chandler in Hollywood — November 2, 2005 @ 4:04 am - November 2, 2005

  3. Jody seems ignorant.

    The single smallest popular vote that was still positive for the winner was Kennedy-Nixon in 1960, a margin of barely 100,000 votes nationwide.

    Most knowledgeable observers admit that the Democrats committed intentional, massive voter fraud in the two closest Electoral College states (Illinois under Chicago’s Mayor Daley, and Texas under Lyndon B. Johnson).

    Yet Nixon, in an act of statesmanship that would be quite unimaginable from today’s Democrats, urged no recounts and that Kennedy’s Presidency not be questioned.

    Moving forward to Bush 2004, the election to which Jody and Bruce refer:

    Bush got the most popular votes (raw number) of any President in United States history.

    Percentage-wise it’s less impressive, but at nearly 51%, Bush still got more of the popular vote than any Democrat for President in 40 years. (Bill Clinton never reached 50% in either of his elections; Jimmy Carter did squeak past 50%.)

    Bush’s 51-to-48 percentage victory over Kerry, four years ago today, translated to a margin of over three million popular votes, or thirty times the Kennedy margin.

    Comment by Calarato — November 2, 2005 @ 9:13 am - November 2, 2005

  4. Salt, meet wounds.

    Heheheh. :)

    Comment by Frank IBC — November 2, 2005 @ 9:51 am - November 2, 2005

  5. Calorato -

    Also, the voter turnout was much higher in 2004 – I believe it was around 65%. In 1996, turnout was an abysmal 48%, and Clinton received only 48% of that – in other words, he received 24% of the votes of all eligible voters.

    Comment by Frank IBC — November 2, 2005 @ 9:53 am - November 2, 2005

  6. Excuse me – “Bush’s 51-to-48 percentage victory over Kerry, A YEAR ago today”

    too many fours!

    Comment by Calarato — November 2, 2005 @ 9:58 am - November 2, 2005

  7. Jody, you’ve failed at the oldest LibLeft tactic on the books –when defeat occurs simply change reality… Bush #43 won decisively in his reelection bid –only the MSM pundits thought he was a loser throughout the campaign, on election night, and for weeks after his SECOND inaugural. Next time pay attention to the facts, not the media and DNC spin… ala, “Kerry nearly won election against a strong, partisan incumbent.”

    Take a moment and let it sink in: Bush won.

    No hanging chads. As others have noted, more people voted for Bush #43 the second time around THAN FOR ANY OTHER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IN HISTORY. Raw numbers don’t lie; only Democrats do.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 2, 2005 @ 10:02 am - November 2, 2005

  8. And as I have noted previously, in the past five years, the Democrats have done NOTHING to address the actual reason why Gore lost in 2000, which is the Electoral College.

    Comment by Frank IBC — November 2, 2005 @ 10:38 am - November 2, 2005

  9. It was the smallest reelection victory, not first term election, margin in history. So jody mistated an accurate fact. Face the facts guys, this wasn’t the ’84 Reagan sweep of Mondale. What is sad but amazing is that he got over 50% of the popular vote with a lower than 50% approval rating…and now we suffer through 2008…

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — November 2, 2005 @ 12:09 pm - November 2, 2005

  10. Mr. “Moderate”:

    I’m confused – by what arithmetic are you claiming that Bush’s 52% vote from a 65% turnout is less than Clinton’s 48% vote from a 48% turnout?

    While it is true that Bush’s approval rating is at a low point, it is still higher than the bottom for every recent President, with the possible exception of Reagan.

    Comment by Frank IBC — November 2, 2005 @ 12:32 pm - November 2, 2005

  11. BDS – Bush Derangement Syndrome – must keep Mr. Leftist from not knowing his 3rd grade arithmetic.

    Clinton’s re-election with only 49% of the popular vote would indeed be THE SMALLEST RE-election popular vote (in percentage terms or adjusting for population growth) in all of United States history.

    Comment by Calarato — November 2, 2005 @ 12:57 pm - November 2, 2005

  12. Two points:

    Does winning a majority of the popular vote somehow give you carte blanche for your initiatives during the remainder of your tenure?

    Is his current 39% approval rating somehow invalid because at one time he won a majority vote?

    Actually his approval is a bit higher than that. And what matters in determining the occupant of the Oval Office is the vote he receives at election time, not polls which oversample his opponents. –Ed.]

    Comment by gaycowboybob — November 2, 2005 @ 12:59 pm - November 2, 2005

  13. (1) Subject to all Constitutional procedures, checks and balances – Yes.

    Winning the Presidency with a minority of the vote (a la Clinton’s re-election) does likewise. It’s called The Constitution.

    (2) Absolutely yes. First of all, it’s actually 41% by the RCP average of polls (with Rasmussen placing it at 45). But that’s a quibble. Because the real answer is this: Polls don’t count. Only Election Day counts. (Again, check your Constitution.)

    Comment by Calarato — November 2, 2005 @ 1:04 pm - November 2, 2005

  14. Jody and Mr. Moderate are like those vacuous sports analysts who try to sound clever with statistics like, “The pitcher has never lost a game on the road in a domed stadium with grass against an ambidexstrous opponent whose last name begins with a Q.”

    Comment by The Malcontent — November 2, 2005 @ 1:06 pm - November 2, 2005

  15. One asterisk to what I said:

    At 46% of the popular vote, Grover Cleveland’s “re-election” in 1892 was technically smaller than Clinton’s.

    But you have to put “re-election” in quotes, because it was not a successive re-election. Cleveland, a Democrat, was actually defeated in the 1888 Presidential election.

    His first term came from the 1884 election, when he won 48%…so even on his “re-election”, he trended down! (Is that a historical first?)

    The site I’m checking adds, of the 1892 campaign:

    “There was no campaigning by either candidate. Harrison’s wife was deathly ill, and he did not even hold porch speeches. Cleveland in difference to Harrison did not either.”

    Another measure of how different today’s Democrats are from the statesmen, both Democrat and Republican, of yore.

    Comment by Calarato — November 2, 2005 @ 1:27 pm - November 2, 2005

  16. Jody, you’ve failed at the oldest LibLeft tactic on the books –when defeat occurs simply change reality…

    Nope. Not changing reality at all. Bush did win.

    Claiming that it was a decisive win, a mandate, a mass stamp of approval for change? No, that’s partisan spin. A little over 122 million voted in 2004. Bush won 62 million of that number — not quite 51%, and a 2.4% margin over Kerry. That’s not a mandate, that’s a squeeker.

    Clinton, for his second term, had a 96 million turn out, of which he won 47 million and change, or 49%. Also not a mandate, but his margin (8.5%) was 4x better than Bush’s, for the same 2nd term election.

    What does that say about the legitimacy of either President? Nuttin’. Both won, fair and square (as these things go.) Neither got a landslide. Neither got a “mandate” for [insert particular cause here.]

    My opinion: Bush’s election was one of the more divisive in our nation’s history, showing just how split we are over very fundamental questions facing our future. Only a fool would consider that carte blanche — an anointing by the gods — to do whatever he wanted, in terms of policy and appointments.

    Funny enough, that’s exactly who got elected…

    Comment by Jody — November 2, 2005 @ 1:44 pm - November 2, 2005

  17. Jody,

    Way to not admit that what you said (“By the smallest margin of popular votes in U.S. history…”) was wrong by every measure!

    Even your own proposed measure, the “spread”, leaves several elections or re-elections where victory was smaller!

    Moving to new content: There seems to be a widespread misunderstanding of the concept of “mandate”.

    A “mandate” is: An authority or commission to do something.

    Everyone who wins election to an office has a mandate…period.

    In terms of popular support, us political junkies do like to handicap the “size” (popular support) of the mandate. To keep it simple and practical, let’s say that:

    - you have a small-ish mandate if you win with NO popular majority
    - you have a decent-to-medium mandate if you win with some kind of popular majority
    - you have a large mandate if you win with a large popular majority

    Examples of “small” (no majority) would be Clinton 1992, and Clinton 1996, and Bush 2000.

    Examples of “medium” (you definitely got a majority) would be Bush(41) 1988, and Bush 2004.

    Comment by Calarato — November 2, 2005 @ 1:59 pm - November 2, 2005

  18. #12 implicitly concedes previous point, but moves goalposts yet again.

    Comment by Frank IBC — November 2, 2005 @ 2:04 pm - November 2, 2005

  19. And it should be obvious that “majority”, by definition, means 50% or more popular vote.

    To illustrate with a counter-example: if you get 20%, and 8 other candidates averaged 10% each…you get the mandate to do the office…but your popular support is, um, thin.

    Comment by Calarato — November 2, 2005 @ 2:06 pm - November 2, 2005

  20. The last truly “decisive” win was Reagan vs. Carter, but libs understandably don’t want to mention that one.

    Comment by Frank IBC — November 2, 2005 @ 2:08 pm - November 2, 2005

  21. Well Frank, the whole thread is about moving the goalposts!

    “We spent hundreds of millions against Bush and lied about him with full support of the media bringing everyone down, and thus prevented him from getting the full Reagan-size landslide he would have gotten otherwise…and because we were able to do that…a Constitutional commission should immediately make Kerry the President!”

    That’s the mentality.

    Comment by Calarato — November 2, 2005 @ 2:10 pm - November 2, 2005

  22. #16 Gotta love that spin, Jody. And you’re a professional writer? Have you met Chandler yet?

    No President –modern or ancient– has received more votes than GWB did in his reelection bid. Simple fact; incontrovertible and compelling.

    Those numbers would have been even higher if the campaign had REALLY mobilized the American center, the Silent Majority. Zagby polls four days after marked likely voters who did not vote to break 62-38% for Bush over Kerry. #1 reason expressed for why they didn’t vote? Content with Bush; didn’t appreciate the King of FlipFlop Kerry.

    The spread as a percentage between Kerry and Bush is a meaningless statistic as others have noted here with baseball analogies. Like they way in New Jersey, “It’s raw numbers, baby.”

    LibLeft pundits like Michael Kinsley and others, along with TV news commentators on the MSM and even LibLeft darling ChrisMatthews, noted that Bush had a mandate after the election. They noted the next story was how well he used that political tool to his and the country’s advantage. And before you take the cheap shot and say he frittered it away; remember your boi Clinton used it to avoid a conviction after his impeachment.

    Nope, spin all you want. The election results are real. The mandate was real. Consensus on the mandate was real. Bush’s first few steps were all assessed in terms of “is this the right way to use his political capital?” But you go ahead and spin in an alternate universe –and ask HarryReid and HowieDean to move over ’cause they’ve got some serious competition from you.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 2, 2005 @ 2:13 pm - November 2, 2005

  23. #12 GayCowBBs, besides moving the goalposts… you’ve uncovered a fundamental difference between your team and Bush’s. Pols mean little to this Prez… I think his advisors and team understand they are a best ephemeral and transitory. Bush has repeatedly pointed out he ISNT controlled by polls, pollsters or public policy wonks pushing agenda items based on polling results.

    You need to separate West Wing and other WH-styled TV shows from reality. Clinton was the last prez who practiced policy by polling because he and his advisors triangulated every issue and everyone they could… it doesn’ happen in this WH.

    You think polling is important to underscore that the Prez is fatally flawed, in error, or at a disconnect with America. Nope, he just remembers his Dad’s term in office when Bush #41 went from strong popularity in the post-war era to the bottom in the face of Slick Willy and his junk yard dogs.

    You think polls are important to policy making and legitimacy. Bush #43 has the experience and maturity to know they don’t.

    Simple enough to understand?

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 2, 2005 @ 2:22 pm - November 2, 2005

  24. Way to not admit that what you said (”By the smallest margin of popular votes in U.S. history…”) was wrong by every measure!

    Actually, as Mr. Moderate already pointed out, I made a mistake. Bush’s reelection was the narrowest margin. My bad.

    Woah. Now that’s interesting. I can admit my mistakes but the President can’t. Funny that.

    Moving on.

    There seems to be a widespread misunderstanding of the concept of “mandate”. A “mandate” is: An authority or commission to do something. Everyone who wins election to an office has a mandate…period.

    I agree that mandate in the authority to act as the people’s representative. However, you, your party — and in a sense I too because I wasn’t more clear — error with your next point when you assign a value of “small,””medium” or “large” to that mandate. There’s no such thing. In this case, a mandate is simply the legal authority to act in the name of the electorate, nothing more or less.

    Majoritarianism, the idea that whoever is the majority gets to set all the rules, is used a lot a round here. However, that’s a bit at odds with our founding principles, where the Framers went to great lengths to protect the country from the tyranny of the majority.

    Arguing that because 50.7% of the people, or 98% for that matter, want something it’s therefore the right thing to do and no contrary view should be brokered, political spin to the contrary, isn’t really what we’re all about here.

    Comment by Jody — November 2, 2005 @ 2:35 pm - November 2, 2005

  25. “Actually, as Mr. Moderate already pointed out, I made a mistake. Bush’s reelection was the narrowest margin. My bad.”

    And as we pointed out, Jody, that claim in itself is wrong. Bush’s re-election was not the narrowest margin.

    You still haven’t admitted any mistake. Hmm….And you presume to criticize Bush?

    Comment by Calarato — November 2, 2005 @ 2:39 pm - November 2, 2005

  26. No President –modern or ancient– has received more votes than GWB did in his reelection bid. Simple fact; incontrovertible and compelling.

    The fact that there’s more people — modern or ancient — around today to vote than ever before wouldn’t have anything to do with that, now would it?

    Naaaaaahhhhh. I’m just being silly.

    Comment by Jody — November 2, 2005 @ 2:43 pm - November 2, 2005

  27. Also – Constitutionalism, the idea that whoever is elected to a Constitutional office gets to exercise the prerogatives of that office, subject to the limits, checks and balances of the other Constitutional offices and of the Bill of Rights and the Federal system, is the idea in play around here.

    If you don’t like it – take it up with the Framers.

    Comment by Calarato — November 2, 2005 @ 2:44 pm - November 2, 2005

  28. Question: “How can 59,000,000 people be so stupid?”.

    Answer: Pay Armstrong Williams to “report” that “No Child Left Behind” is a success….

    Comment by Sassy — November 2, 2005 @ 3:08 pm - November 2, 2005

  29. “[I]in the past five years, the Democrats have done NOTHING to address the actual reason why Gore lost in 2000, which is the Electoral College.”

    Bills to eliminate the Electoral College have been introduced in the US Congress hundreds of times, and have always failed. Why? Because there is no chance that a constitutional amendment would be ratified by the legislatures in 38 states. Zero. The citizens of Alaska, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Delaware, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Nevada, Kansas, Iowa, and other states with low populations know better than to cede the influence they wield in presidential elections via the Electoral College to a handful of big states (California, Texas, New York, Illinios, Florida, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.)

    Comment by Butch — November 2, 2005 @ 3:20 pm - November 2, 2005

  30. #25, go to your favorite encyclopedia (i’ll post a link following), for facts about the 2004 election:

    1. It was the smallest reelection margin in U.S. history in terms of percentage of the popular vote. The former record was Woodrow Wilson’s reelection in 1916 (3.2% versus Bush’s 2.5%)

    2. In terms of absolute votes his reelection margin was the smallest since Truman’s in 1948.

    3. Bush received more votes for president than any other presidential candidate in history.

    4. Kerry received more votes for president than any other candidate in history, however obviously still less than Bush.

    I bring up 3 and 4 to show how idiotic it is to try and justify his mandate by saying he got more votes than any president in history. By this metric, he has more of a mandate than Reagan did in 1984 when he won 59% of the popular vote. That doesn’t hold water.

    I’m not surprised Repbulicans called 50.7% a mandate from the people to enact their agenda. They claimed they had a mandate when they won the 2000 elections with less than 50% of the vote, but then again so did Clinton in 1992.

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — November 2, 2005 @ 4:00 pm - November 2, 2005

  31. http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2004

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — November 2, 2005 @ 4:01 pm - November 2, 2005

  32. #17, does having a mandate mean the opposition should just lay down and be the party in power’s bitch? I’m just curious, because I was very thankful the Republican party didn’t do that in the 1993 and 1994 sessions when Clinton and the Dems held both the legislative and executive branches after selling the universal health care scam to the American people. Why should that right of resistence only be in effect when the Republicans are in the minority? I’m sure Democrats bitched as much as the Republicans are now, but I really don’t care. It’s the right and duty of the minority to stop these legislative steamrollers that appear to happen everytime one party controls both branches of government.

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — November 2, 2005 @ 4:10 pm - November 2, 2005

  33. If you don’t like it – take it up with the Framers.

    Since they’re dead, I think it would simply be a lot easier to impeach him or continue to let his Royal Lame Duckness continue to flounder, but you let me know when you get that time machine thingy working.

    Comment by gaycowboybob — November 2, 2005 @ 4:15 pm - November 2, 2005

  34. Comment 30 -

    No, it wasn’t “the smallest reelection margin in U.S. history in terms of percentage of the popular vote”. Bull, bull and bull.

    This is such a basic error that you ought to check it and fix it yourself.

    Go here: http://www.multied.com/elections/
    and spend an hour clicking through each election, and see if you can find 3 or more elections where the President was re-elected, yes RE elected, with a smaller percentage of the popular vote.

    They’re there.

    “In terms of absolute votes his reelection margin was the smallest since Truman’s in 1948.”

    Now we’re in the realm of “baseball statistics” to try to prove a dumb point.’

    Bush got, not only an absolute majority of the popular vote, but a higher percentage of the popular vote than any – repeat ANY – Democrat for President has gotten in forty years.

    Suck on that for awhile, then come back.

    Comment by Calarato — November 2, 2005 @ 4:18 pm - November 2, 2005

  35. Calarato are you trying to be intentionally obtuse? The margin between the winning candidate and the next losing candidate was smaller than any election in U.S. history. The next smallest was Woodrow Wilson’s reelection, go to the reference.com link and take a gander.

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — November 2, 2005 @ 4:28 pm - November 2, 2005

  36. I guess if I was a democrat, I’d be upset about your gratuitously boldfaced last sentence, besides the childish “suck it” reference. Since I was for Bush in 1992, and voted for GW in 2000 I guess I’d say “suck it” back at you.

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — November 2, 2005 @ 4:30 pm - November 2, 2005

  37. #17, does having a mandate mean the opposition should just lay down and be the party in power’s bitch?

    In these immortal words from Monty Python, Mr. Moderate:

    “Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.”

    Now, apparently there are two extremes in your world: either we oppose everything that the other party does or we’re being their “bitch”.

    The problem here is that the Democratic agenda of unrestricted abortion, taxation, and government spending, coupled with public vilification of religion, business, and anyone who works for a living, simply won’t fly with the American public. That’s why Democrats have made of their entire party contradicting anything Republicans say or do.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 2, 2005 @ 4:33 pm - November 2, 2005

  38. Wow – my point registered!

    Now work on that election margin thingie. I already told you, you’re making such a basic error that you can be the one to re-check it and fix it.

    Comment by Calarato — November 2, 2005 @ 4:35 pm - November 2, 2005

  39. Unrestricted government spending, huh? We’ve had the fastest growth in the size of discretionary spending and the number of pork projects in the last four years, and you think Democrats are the only ones familiar with fiscal irresponsibility…you’re a riot…

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — November 2, 2005 @ 4:36 pm - November 2, 2005

  40. Mr. Moderate -

    You don’t “win the Silver”.

    You “lose the Gold”.

    Comment by Frank IBC — November 2, 2005 @ 4:41 pm - November 2, 2005

  41. 34 percent — think Bush is doing a good job ensuring high ethics in government, which is slightly lower than President Clinton’s standing when he left office.

    Comment by travis t monk — November 2, 2005 @ 4:46 pm - November 2, 2005

  42. Well Frank, just remember, 2,000,000 votes the other way and they could have won. “Coulda, shoulda, woulda.” “If only the American people weren’t so dumb.”

    Travis needs to pay more attention to what has already been covered in this thread.

    Comment by Calarato — November 2, 2005 @ 4:49 pm - November 2, 2005

  43. Calato the margin is a no brainer. I’ll do the algebra for you data from:
    http://www.uselectionatlas.org/

    Bush 50.73 % popular vote
    Kerry 48.26% popular vote
    Difference = 2.47% difference

    Woodrow Wilson 49.25 % popular vote
    Charles Hughes 46.12% popular vote
    Difference = 3.12% difference

    See how margin works…If I sell an item for $10 and my total costs are $8 then my margin is $2. We get that by doing 10 – 8 = 2. Are you up to speed now?

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — November 2, 2005 @ 4:56 pm - November 2, 2005

  44. Check some other elections now.

    Comment by Calarato — November 2, 2005 @ 4:59 pm - November 2, 2005

  45. By the way, there are other, much more basic errors you’re making.

    It is fun to see you keep missing the forest for the trees!

    I have to go – c u l8r!

    Comment by Calarato — November 2, 2005 @ 5:08 pm - November 2, 2005

  46. Other re-elections…Bush was re-elected with the smallest margin. If you think you have something on the encyclopedia, then go through the electoral stats at the link I gave you and give it a whirl. The reelection margins for some other recent re-elections are below:

    1996 Clinton won by 8.51% point margin
    1984 Reagan won by 18.21% point margin
    1972 Nixon won by 23.15% point margin
    1964 LBJ won by 22.58% point margin (not really re-election though)
    1956 Ike won by 15.4% point margin
    1948 Truman won by 4.48% point margin (not really re-election though)
    1944 FDR won by 7.5% point margin
    1940 FDR won by 9.96% point margin
    1936 FDR won by 30.26% point margin
    1924 Coolidge won by 25.22% point margin (not really re-election though)…

    I can do more if you want me to…

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — November 2, 2005 @ 5:12 pm - November 2, 2005

  47. #45 By the way, there are other, much more basic errors you’re making.

    You mean like wasting my time discussing this with you?

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — November 2, 2005 @ 5:20 pm - November 2, 2005

  48. #46 are of course the popular vote margins for presidents were were re-elected in case you last track of what we were talknig about Cal.

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — November 2, 2005 @ 5:24 pm - November 2, 2005

  49. Are all Moderates this obssessed with George W. Bush’s re-election margin? Frankly, I think this debate is silly. All elections are unique, and there were several unique factors in play in the 2004 election. First of all, both parties completely maximized the turnout of their base. Second, the mainstream media engaged in unprecedented levels of attack against a sitting president in an election year, including the use of forged memos, and unsubstantiated allegations of cocaine use in the weeks leading up to the election. Third, for the first time, we had the phenomenon of well-financed 527 organizations like Move-On, America Coming Together that had no comparable Republican counterparts. Fourth, we had the entertainment media working to insinuate anti-Bush propaganda into the public consciousness, e.g. Fahrenheit 9-11. And there were some other X-factors, as well. But to act as if Bush’s narrow margin victory proves he’s a bad president that nobody likes is as silly as saying that fact that he won proves he’s a great president that everybody likes. If all elections were conducted under precisely the same conditions where the only variable was the quality of the candidates, the margin might support one of those conclusions, but not in the case where there are so many variables.

    Comment by V the K — November 2, 2005 @ 5:26 pm - November 2, 2005

  50. #49 “But to act as if Bush’s narrow margin victory proves he’s a bad president that nobody likes is as silly as saying that fact that he won proves he’s a great president that everybody likes.”

    I couldn’t agree more, hence my getting worked up everytime I hear Republican talking heads crying foul ball when someone says “boo” because “we have a mandate from 2004.” What *really* gets my goat is when the religious right claims the same thing, as if religious issues were the one and only issue on the ballot in 2004.

    My only obsessession with 2004 is that we now have to suffer with GWB through 2008. I’d sooner just put this whole nightmare behind us. I know you like it, but we all have our opinions on what sort of president he is (electoral results irrelevant to that opinion).

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — November 2, 2005 @ 5:33 pm - November 2, 2005

  51. Just what is the point of having elections, anyway, if the winning side doesn’t get to implement its policies?

    Comment by Frank IBC — November 2, 2005 @ 5:40 pm - November 2, 2005

  52. #51 it’s not a question of if they can enact their policies but if they can pretend like the other 48.5% of the electorate’s opinion is irrelevant. I will again take you back to 1993 and 1994 where using your logic Clinton & Co. should have been able to get their trillion dollar health care grab done. I mean, they won, they should have gotten to enact their agenda, right?

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — November 2, 2005 @ 5:53 pm - November 2, 2005

  53. Just what is the point of having elections, anyway, if the winning side doesn’t get to implement its policies?

    It means it LEADS Frank, not that it gets to DICTATE. Slight difference there.

    Comment by gaycowboybob — November 2, 2005 @ 6:18 pm - November 2, 2005

  54. Unrestricted government spending, huh? We’ve had the fastest growth in the size of discretionary spending and the number of pork projects in the last four years, and you think Democrats are the only ones familiar with fiscal irresponsibility…you’re a riot…

    Hardly. But given that Democrats demand even more spending, what’s your point?

    it’s not a question of if they can enact their policies but if they can pretend like the other 48.5% of the electorate’s opinion is irrelevant.

    Codespeak — not giving the other side everything they want is treating their opinion as if it’s “irrelevant”. By that logic, we should be letting Cindy Sheehan dictate the foreign policy of the United States.

    The reason the Democrats aren’t getting what they want is because their opinions ARE irrelevant. We’re not going to blame the Jews and say the Iraqi insurgents are “freedom fighters”, nee Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore. We’re not going to punish businesses and people for being successful. We’re not going to promote abortion as a replacement for sexual responsibility.

    As soon as the Democrats decide to be for something, instead of against everything, they’ll begin their long trek back into relevance and having their opinion heard.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 2, 2005 @ 6:20 pm - November 2, 2005

  55. the day i wish i could have back and write in my neighbor for president.

    Comment by in_the_middle — November 2, 2005 @ 7:34 pm - November 2, 2005

  56. Most American’s voted for anybody but Bush in the last election, by voting for his opponent or not voting at all.
    The Majority of Americans’ did not want Bush.
    He was ‘elected’ by a minority of the population.
    That said, the voting tally fraud in Ohio made hanging chads look like a good polling.
    There is no recount in a system that fails to make a permanent fixed record.
    A bit here, a bit there and next thing you know an election has been stollen with narry a trail to follow.
    There are no elections where computers fail to leave a paper trail.
    Hail to the Thief!

    Comment by gaypatriotstop — November 2, 2005 @ 8:24 pm - November 2, 2005

  57. “the Democrats have done NOTHING to address the actual reason why Gore lost in 2000″

    And neither have the Republicant’s

    Comment by gaypatriotstop — November 2, 2005 @ 8:28 pm - November 2, 2005

  58. The Republicans weren’t the ones whining about the 2000 election allegedly being stolen, idiot.

    Comment by Frank IBC — November 2, 2005 @ 9:11 pm - November 2, 2005

  59. Oh, my… now every time a Democrat loses, the Republicans have the responsibility to ensure that the Democrats win the next time.

    Call me when the shuttle arrives, GayCow.

    Comment by Frank IBC — November 2, 2005 @ 9:13 pm - November 2, 2005

  60. “Any democracy that ceases to have dissent won’t remain a democracy for long.”

    Mr. Moderate is correct. If people in the minority ceased to stand up for their beliefs, then eventually the moderate wing of the party in charge would stop standing up to the far side of the party and extremists would take over. Look how far that nutcase McCarthy got.

    I’m really distrubed by some of the posters hear who have a “sit down and shut up” attitude towards those of us who simply don’t subscribe to their beliefs. We have a different point of view and (unless the constitution has changed recently) sitl have the right to express it.

    Comment by Kevin — November 2, 2005 @ 9:54 pm - November 2, 2005

  61. I don’t have a sit down and shut up attitude.

    I have a “G-d, how can someone be so stupid” attitude. :)

    Comment by Frank IBC — November 2, 2005 @ 10:11 pm - November 2, 2005

  62. Get over your martyr complex, Kevin. I know all Leftists have oppression envy but you’re not under martial law. No has to treat your hate of Bush as intellectual and productive. You show no respect for anyone on the right who posts so don’t get sensitive now.

    When you guys provide useful alternatives to present policy instead of scorched-earth tactics intended to do nothing but destroy the lives and careers of fellow Americans you will get your hearing. I voted for Clinton, I voted for my Democrat Yankee governor Bredsen. It’s not the Bush supporters who have anything to prove. You guys have to convince the rest of us or at least enough of us that you actually like this country and would actually support us against our enemies. I don’t believe you would for even a minute at this time and apparently a majority of your fellow citizens feel the same when you look at Congress as well as the White House.

    I hate the Religious Right but they are much less threatening to me than those Communist freaks marching in the streets every two months. I don’t have to worry about a bigot like Santorum bowing to terrorists like sweet tolerant Durbin. There will be a time to sort out the freaks on the right but we have bigger fish to fry at the moment. Your trivial pursuits are all vanity. Its always about YOU.

    Three national elections lost and you arrogant divas still insist you are the ones this nation should be obeying. I still want to believe you wouldn’t be this insane if you weren’t so powerless but you can’t accuse the cross-burners of anything your own freaks aren’t just as guilty of believing and advocating.

    Comment by VinceTN — November 2, 2005 @ 10:15 pm - November 2, 2005

  63. Well, Kevin has eluded Bushitler’s Extermination Patrols for another day. (but for how long? How long?)

    Yes, and people who dissent against the Bush Regime are so courageous given the horrific oppression that they face. Let’s see, how much money did Michael Moore make last year? What was Joe Wilson’s book deal worth? Mary Mapes got $250K for her memoirs. And what about Cindy Sheehan? The Bush Regime really shut her up, didn’t they?

    The sound of dissent in this country is pretty much that of left-wingers high-fiving each other on their way to A-List cocktail parties, or tapping out horrific tales of the oppression under the Bush police state and posting them to Kos and DUMB during breaks at Kinkos.

    Comment by V the K — November 2, 2005 @ 10:39 pm - November 2, 2005

  64. In the category of “God, If We’d Only Known Then What We Know Today” comes today’s numbers from the CBS Poll:

    Approve Of Bush’s Job Performance = 35% (only Nixon was ever lower)

    Disapprove & Wish The Idiot Will Spare Us 3 More Years Of This = 57%

    Just Too Numb To Have An Opinion One Way Or The Other = 8%

    Approve Of The Republican Congress = 34%

    Approve Of Cheney’s Job Performance = 19%

    Many more juicy details at the link, Gay Patriots…

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/02/eveningnews/main1005982.shtml

    My, where did all that “political capital” disappear to?

    [The CBS poll has, along with AP-Ipsos, long been the most slanted against the GOP, routintely oversampling Democrats, so I wouldn't take much stock in this. --Ed.]

    Comment by Queer Patriot — November 2, 2005 @ 10:45 pm - November 2, 2005

  65. Actually, GP, this is testimony to the power of the media to support a lie; they’ve spent so much time obscuring the true nature of what went on in Saddam’s Iraq that it’s no wonder people have forgotten.

    However, what will be interesting are the campaign ads for next year filled with juicy details from Saddam’s trial. Imagine footage of Ted Kennedy bloviating over torture at Abu Ghirab, then the videos of Saddam’s torture at Abu Ghirab as Senator Chappaquiddick thunders how putting a stop to it was unnecessary and unjustified. The possibilities are endless.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 2, 2005 @ 11:06 pm - November 2, 2005

  66. I’m just glad I got enough going on in my life that I don’t need to obssess over the president’s approval numbers.

    Comment by V the K — November 2, 2005 @ 11:35 pm - November 2, 2005

  67. GayPatriotWest, in your cowardly edit of my last comment (No. 64), you say the CBS Poll is “long the most slanted against the GOP, routinely oversampling Democrats”. Where’s your proof (% GOP vs. % Dem vs. % Independent/No Party)? And about of the weighting? Tell us what you know. And let’s hope it, like some of your other proof links, doesn’t reside in a Byron York rant.

    Thirty, I know you and some others on your side are saying today that a nasty little terror attack in the right Blue state would reverse those poll numbers, but are you really hoping for that — all to boost the President’s ratings?

    Comment by Queer Patriot — November 2, 2005 @ 11:41 pm - November 2, 2005

  68. Has impeachment ever been invoked for sheer incompetance?

    Comment by gaycowboybob — November 2, 2005 @ 11:50 pm - November 2, 2005

  69. No, just for “high crimes and misdemeanors”. You’re getting it confused with “vote of confidence”, which does not to be “for cause” and which does not exist in this country, but is the norm in most other countries.

    Comment by Frank IBC — November 2, 2005 @ 11:59 pm - November 2, 2005

  70. Thirty, I know you and some others on your side are saying today that a nasty little terror attack in the right Blue state would reverse those poll numbers, but are you really hoping for that — all to boost the President’s ratings?

    Absolutely not. While that could in theory be true, why in the world would I want to wish death and destruction on my fellow Americans to raise Bush’s poll ratings? Nothing in life is that important, and especially not approval ratings.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 2, 2005 @ 11:59 pm - November 2, 2005

  71. A recent example of the bias of NYT/CBS News polls. In their September poll this year, they oversampled Democrats. That poll showed a “36% Democrat/26% Republican/28% Independent/9% Don’t Know breakdown.” Exit polls (which favored Kerry) last fall showed parity between the parties.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 3, 2005 @ 3:54 am - November 3, 2005

  72. As per my prior comment (#71), the poll that QP touts (in #64) undersamples Republicans (via Power Line).

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 3, 2005 @ 4:14 am - November 3, 2005

  73. GayCowBBs and Mr Mod, with a little QueerPat throw in… you guys DO miss the forest while focusing in on the trees! I love LibLefties; all this time and they STILL don’t get it right.

    Posit #1 A longwinded defense of your misstated preposition that the percentage of the margin of victory is important because it denies Bush43 the opportunity to claim “mandate” status is, well, plain ol’ silly. Percentage of the margin of reelection? Do even see how deep into the hollers of stats you have to go before you can refute the premise? My God.

    Posit #2 It wasn’t Bush claiming the mandate right after the election… it was some of the LibLeft commentators and pundits (before they got their talking pts in sync) that were offering the election victory could translate into new political capital for the Prez.

    Posit #3 The most important point you missed in my rebutts to Jody’s original nonsense was that THIS Prez doesn’t lead by polls, doesn’t try to triangulate groups and issues, and doesn’t practice policy by pollsters… so whether he’s down or up, he knows from his Father’s own experience in the job, voters and the general American public are fickle… they can turn on you in a dime… and it’s nearly impossible to fight those LibLefty institutions like the press when they buy their ink by the barrelfuls… or bandwidths by the ______.

    And out of all that, you guys continue to miss that this Prez doesn’t make decisions and policy by watching the polls. He knows better. He’s more mature on this point than your last two bigboys who held the office –Carter and Clinton. Contrary to the current officeholder, they were CONTROLED by the polls. Some would offer: crippled by the polls.

    Percentage of margin of reelection for the incumbent is an obtuse position to defend. As is the interest in undercutting this Prez by watching the polls. The more interesting story is why do some organs of the MSM continue to slant polling when the numbers offer enough fodder for the LibLeft to denigrate the Prez’s standing with rank & file Americans.

    And on that very point… what’s so critical about what the “rank & file American” thinks? A short while ago, you LibLefties were all-a-tutter about polling that indicated a large percentage of Americans thought God created the world and the Bible gets it mostly right. You had nothing but contempt for those rank & file Americans.

    Why the sudden lovefest? I know, because it helps your side score political points. But you know it hypocritical, right? Right GayCowBB? Right Mr Moderate who alleges he voted for GOPers but sure doesn’t sound like it? Right GayQueer or Chandler or TxRazorBack or whatever the handle of the week?

    Scoop: rank & file Americans are gullible and don’t have the skills to determine what’s truth or fiction. It’s why those tabloids in the grocery store lead with “Aliens abduct Georgia woman and create super alien race” or “Hillary’s lesbian lover says ‘Leave Bill or Else’”.

    Forest for the trees. This Prez isn’t led by polls. Thank God for leadership with principle.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 3, 2005 @ 10:45 am - November 3, 2005

  74. Comment 70 -

    Yeah. Wishing for death and destruction on fellow Americans for political gain is very much the Left’s province.

    (Michael Moore….Mama Moonbat….all the Kos Kidz who gnashed their teeth over Saddam Hussein’s capture back when, and recently smiled big smiles at celebrations for the “2,000 troops dead” statistic…)

    Comment by Calarato — November 3, 2005 @ 11:13 am - November 3, 2005

  75. Comment 73 -

    One of the tactics that Leftists train their harcore activists in, is to claim “I’m a lifelong Republican, I voted Bush 2000, but even I find that this administration _________ (blah blah blah).” On conservative radio shows, on forums like these, etc.

    I’ll give Bob points for not doing that.

    I read something about it just recently; one can probably google it.

    Comment by Calarato — November 3, 2005 @ 11:18 am - November 3, 2005

  76. Comment 46 -

    Yeah Mr. Leftist, you are still missing it bad.

    Clinton never got the support of a majority of Americans. Not even on his re-election (prior to Monicagate).

    Bush did.

    Face it. Deal with it.

    “Well Bush was .0000746 off from Woodrow Wilson in 1916 which is a low if you only count special elections of werewolf years” doesn’t cut it. He got a 3,000,000 vote majority in an election where your guys tried everything. Clinton couldn’t and didn’t get that kind of support from the American people. Ponder that.

    Comment by Calarato — November 3, 2005 @ 11:36 am - November 3, 2005

  77. GP -

    Regarding your update, what about Johnson in 1964? Or is that counted as a “first” election?

    Comment by Frank IBC — November 3, 2005 @ 11:46 am - November 3, 2005

  78. That was Johnson’s first election.

    Comment by Calarato — November 3, 2005 @ 11:49 am - November 3, 2005

  79. And is Truman’s election in 1948 also counted as a “first” election?

    At any rate, for the Democrats, their best-case scenario would be 1964, and that’s still 40 years ago.

    Comment by Frank IBC — November 3, 2005 @ 11:50 am - November 3, 2005

  80. One of the tactics that Leftists train their harcore activists in, is to claim “I’m a lifelong Republican, I voted Bush 2000, but even I find that this administration _________ (blah blah blah).”

    They’re called Mobies. If you want to guarantee that Andrew Sullivan will publish your email, all you have to do is follow the Moby format. “I was a life-long Republican who voted for Republicans in every election since time began, but because of Bushitler’s Regime of LYING and CORRUPTION I have been forced to renounce my party membership and join the Socialist Worker’s Party…” Sullivan will totally believe you.

    Comment by V the K — November 3, 2005 @ 12:01 pm - November 3, 2005

  81. VK, why is it so hard for you people to accept that not everyone who dislikes the Bush administration and the religious right are left wing moonbats? It never even crosses your mind that there are people across the entire spectrum who are tired of the antics of Bush & Co. as much as we were tired of the antics of Clinton & Co. Your attepmts to trivialize any dissent ring as hollow as those by the Clintonistas.

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — November 3, 2005 @ 2:43 pm - November 3, 2005

  82. why is it so hard for you people to accept that not everyone who dislikes the Bush administration and the religious right are left wing moonbats?

    For just one example of why, you might look in the mirror.

    Comment by Frank IBC — November 3, 2005 @ 2:45 pm - November 3, 2005

  83. Frank, I know we’ve had so many conversations in private, and you’ve read all of what I’ve written on politics and history for the last twenty years, so you make that informed judgement from such a position, right…of course not. You’re back to, “You don’t like Bush and you don’t take all the tripe the GOP dishes out so you must be a communist ecoterrorist.” Get over it already.

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — November 3, 2005 @ 2:56 pm - November 3, 2005

  84. Oh I forgot, and since I don’t like Bush I must also hate America too, right Frank…

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — November 3, 2005 @ 2:56 pm - November 3, 2005

  85. #84 — First of all, I’m pretty sure that a review of all comments on GP would reveal that I’ve made more critical comments about Bush and Republicans than you, QP, P2,GCB, Kevin, Heather, and monty combined have made of democrats.

    Second, there’s a difference between reasoned critcism (Bush spends too much money, Bush neglects the borders, Bush has made mistakes in conducting the war, Bush was wrong to endorse the FMA) and hysterical moonbat criticism. (Chimpy LIED about WMDS so he could his NEOCON OIL WAR! Chimpy and Rove should be frog-marched from the White House for revealing the TOP SECRET Identity of Covert Operative Valerie Plame! Republicans want to exterminate gay people!) Most of the Bush criticism from the list of people cited previously falls into the latter category.

    Comment by V the K — November 3, 2005 @ 3:08 pm - November 3, 2005

  86. Why the sudden lovefest? I know, because it helps your side score political points. But you know it hypocritical, right? Right GayCowBB? Right Mr Moderate who alleges he voted for GOPers but sure doesn’t sound like it? Right GayQueer or Chandler or TxRazorBack or whatever the handle of the week?

    Matty,

    Bitterness is just simply ugly. The airport called to give back your baggage. :-)

    Comment by gaycowboybob — November 3, 2005 @ 3:24 pm - November 3, 2005

  87. Oh my… did someone just say, “how dare you question my patriotism”?

    Comment by Frank IBC — November 3, 2005 @ 4:11 pm - November 3, 2005

  88. #75 I’m sure the lefties would like to take sole credit for that meaningless tactic, but in NJ, we had one of the commercials (for the gubernatorial election) in which several people said, “I’m a lifelong Democrat, but blah, blah, blah.”

    Comment by Pat — November 3, 2005 @ 5:23 pm - November 3, 2005

  89. Comment 87 -

    Could be, Frank. But I thought it was the pot phoning the kettle to say “You’re black…you’re black!”

    Comment by Calarato — November 3, 2005 @ 8:59 pm - November 3, 2005

  90. “Thirty, I know you and some others on your side are saying today that a nasty little terror attack in the right Blue state would reverse those poll numbers, but are you really hoping for that — all to boost the President’s ratings?”

    Queer Patriot

    “While that could in theory be true…”
    North Dallas Thirty — November 2, 2005 @ 11:59 pm

    I had heard the Bushbots were talking about this. Now we know they have. What an ugly thing to contemplate.

    Comment by Queer Patriot — November 3, 2005 @ 11:01 pm - November 3, 2005

  91. West, you’ve apparently never heard of sample weighting.

    Comment by Queer Patriot — November 3, 2005 @ 11:02 pm - November 3, 2005

  92. LOL….yup, Queer Patriot, you caught me. Let me post the link so that people can see just how incredibly accurate your quote of me is.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 4, 2005 @ 1:47 am - November 4, 2005

  93. The theory that it would reverse poll numbers is probably true, QP. 30 then goes on to assure hysterical Leftists that he does not wish for such a thing to happen. Selective editing/posting is so mainstream media. If you won’t fight honestly, Queer – why get in the fight at all?

    Comment by VinceTN — November 4, 2005 @ 9:39 am - November 4, 2005

  94. GayCowBBs, no bitterness here –no bags, either. Re-read 73

    Here’s the rub of it… one minute the LibLefties like you are embracing the great American populace for being sane, wise, and prudent in their seeming condemnation of Bush ala public approval in polls, but the next minute dis’ing the American public for believing God created man and the Universe.

    Now, you might be able to have it both ways while hiding the closet in your earlier life, or saying you support Kerry but secretly voting for Bush and Cheney… but, you can’t say the American public is wrong on Intelligent Design but right on Bush’s apporval rating -which, by the way, is no lower than the public’s approval rating of House Democrats or Senate Democrats or trial lawyers or your Hi-5-Buddie-Nagin in New Orleans. As we say in Michigan, “that dog just don’t hunt, boi”.

    Oh, GayCowBBs, the TSA recommends you stop leaving YOUR bags at the airport and relying on the free delivery service to get them to your trailer… I know you were raised to think the gov’t ought to do EVERYTHING for you, but this practice of yours is taking “rights” to an extreme. No one has a right to free travel bag delivery.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 4, 2005 @ 11:10 am - November 4, 2005

  95. No. 92, now you’re starting to understand how it feels when you do this to others, eh? You’re so deserving…

    Comment by Queer Patriot — November 6, 2005 @ 6:24 pm - November 6, 2005

  96. I happened upon this website quite by accident and I am just overjoyed that there are more Gay Republicans, I thought I was the only one.
    I was looking up the Ohio ballot issues 2 thru 5, I am not sure what they are yet but there is a multi million dollar ad campaign to defeat them and there are no ads in their defense. This strikes me as sinister and so I am lookig them up before I vote tomorrow.
    I plan to come here more often
    Although I am out now, I retired from the US Army in 2000 and went to shool. I will graduate from a University in Ohio in December (05). I just love politics and economics, they are my minor. Telecommunications and broadcast journalism is my major.
    There are some aspects of certain members of the Republican party that I find totally abhorent but, I find everything about the Democratic party totally abhorent. So, although I must tolerate the homophobe portion of my party; I don’t have to tolerate those neomarxist Democrat traitors to my country and Lockean liberal philosophy.
    Thank you gay patriot net for being here

    Comment by John Jett — November 7, 2005 @ 1:41 pm - November 7, 2005

  97. No. 92, now you’re starting to understand how it feels when you do this to others, eh? You’re so deserving…

    Not really. I have yet to see you post anything that proves anything other than your calling Democrats who support the FMA and antigay state constitutional amendments “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 8, 2005 @ 11:37 am - November 8, 2005

  98. consensus politics…

    How does the rss feed work so I can get updated on your blog?…

    Trackback by consensus politics — July 3, 2008 @ 1:15 pm - July 3, 2008

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.