PDA

View Full Version : 4 of the past 5 Presidential elections...



Satanicus
07-21-2010, 04:59 PM
the American people gave the Democrats more votes than the Republicans.

In 4 of the last 5 Presidential elections the American people wanted the Democrats in the WH.

Just stating the facts, thats all.

Do you really think the American people will give the GOP the votes this time ? ...of course not.

There is ONE reason the stats are not 5 of the last 5 ...and that reason is 9-11.

Discuss:

http://dummidumbwit.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/fdr-campaigning-1932.jpg

Bleda
07-21-2010, 05:35 PM
What's there to discuss? That's not how elections work in America.

And I suggest you look around this site (http://2008election.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=001565) and see how much of the electoral vote various winning Presidents actually received.

Satanicus
07-21-2010, 05:44 PM
What's there to discuss? That's not how elections work in America.

And I suggest you look around this site (http://2008election.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=001565) and see how much of the electoral vote various winning Presidents actually received.

I was just stating what the American people wanted, thats all.

Molon Labe
07-21-2010, 05:52 PM
I was just stating what the American people wanted, thats all.

Good idea. We all know that what Boobus Americanus wants is what is best.

ralph wiggum
07-21-2010, 05:56 PM
You know, you post that same shit every fucking time you come back here, asswipe. :rolleyes:

Conveniently forgetting that pesky Electoral College thing again, as usual. And the fact that Ross Perot didn't exactly make '92 a normal election year.

Guess what? From 1968 to 1988, the Republicans were five out of six in the popular vote in presidential elections. There's only ONE reason why it wasn't six of six - Watergate.

Discuss.

Odysseus
07-21-2010, 06:36 PM
I was just stating what the American people wanted, thats all.

No, you were telling us what you wanted in the next election cycle. Think of it another way: In the 1992 and 1996 elections, the Democrat came in with a plurality, but not a majority. That means that in three out of five of the last election cycles, a majority of voters voted against the Democrat. Also, in the last election cycle, the Democrat ran as a moderate. That mask has not just slipped, it's been blown off. The American people won't fall for it again.

Satanicus
07-21-2010, 06:59 PM
You know, you post that same shit every fucking time you come back here, asswipe. :rolleyes:

Conveniently forgetting that pesky Electoral College thing again, as usual. And the fact that Ross Perot didn't exactly make '92 a normal election year.

Guess what? From 1968 to 1988, the Republicans were five out of six in the popular vote in presidential elections. There's only ONE reason why it wasn't six of six - Watergate.

Discuss.

You can hold onto Reagan if you want , I am looking at the current streak the Dems have.

Have you already forgot George H W Bush's 1 term ?

BadCat
07-21-2010, 07:03 PM
You can hold onto Reagan if you want , I am looking at the current streak the Dems have.

Have you already forgot George H W Bush's 1 term ?

It will be remembered more favorably than Obumble's one term.

Apocalypse
07-21-2010, 07:06 PM
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b211/Dispel_Illusions/1224135638_b479297367.jpg

What more do you expect from him.

BadCat
07-21-2010, 07:07 PM
What more do you expect from him.

Actually, I expect him to get a job, quit living off his wife and the money he steals from taxpayers.

Apocalypse
07-21-2010, 07:11 PM
Actually, I expect him to get a job, quit living off his wife and the money he steals from taxpayers.

A worthless liberturd getting off his fat lazy welfare steeling ass and make his life worth value to society that he waste his time demonizing as uncaring and raciest?

Too much effort, he has websites to troll that is more important then getting a JOB!

Zafod
07-21-2010, 07:23 PM
good fricken grief this is getting old.....

enslaved1
07-25-2010, 10:59 PM
the American people gave the Democrats more votes than the Republicans.

In 4 of the last 5 Presidential elections the American people wanted the Democrats in the WH.

Just stating the facts, thats all.

Do you really think the American people will give the GOP the votes this time ? ...of course not.

There is ONE reason the stats are not 5 of the last 5 ...and that reason is 9-11.

Discuss:



How about the fact that only 1/2 of the eligible voters participate in elections, meaning that the results don't really show what the American people want? Shoots a nice big hole in your theory eh?

KhrushchevsShoe
07-25-2010, 11:11 PM
How about the fact that only 1/2 of the eligible voters participate in elections, meaning that the results don't really show what the American people want? Shoots a nice big hole in your theory eh?

So what? Fuck those people. If they dont care enough to vote they shouldn't be bitching.

Nubs
07-25-2010, 11:16 PM
Civics 101 - Electoral college

Put down the bong and Cheetos and pay attention next time

Satanicus
07-26-2010, 07:08 AM
Civics 101 - Electoral college

Put down the bong and Cheetos and pay attention next time

I am just saying what the voters wanted.

When the President wins an election , he doesn't cater to the EC you fool.

It matters what the people want.

obx
07-26-2010, 09:03 AM
I was just stating what the American people wanted, thats all.

You mean like on Health Care and the Arizona Immigration law?
________
BDSM SPANKING (http://www.fucktube.com/categories/251/spanking/videos/1)

NJCardFan
07-26-2010, 09:21 AM
So what? Fuck those people. If they dont care enough to vote they shouldn't be bitching.

I actually agree with footsie here. Now, as for the real truth, let's put this in general terms(I am not including votes for fringe parties):

1992: People voting for Clinton-44,909,806(43%) People not voting for Clinton-58,848,371(54.4%) Meaning, most Americans didn't want Clinton as their president. Had Perot not run, Bush 41 would have won this election.

1996: People voting for Clinton-47,401,185(49.2%) People not voting for Clinton-47,282,763(49.1%) Meaning he won this by the hair of his chinny chin chin. But once again he did not garner a majority of the popular vote. Not even half. Hell, I voted for the National Tax Payer Party guy.

2000: Gore-50,999,897(48.4%) Bush-50,456,002(47.9%) The big thing here is that Gore couldn't carry his home state. If he had been able to carry Tennessee, Florida would not have mattered. Not to mention that when Florida was recounted, the always right down the middle Democratic Party only wanted votes recounted in Democratically heavy districts. However, all things being equal, again, a majority of voters didn't want a Democrat president(or Republican for that matter in 2000). 3 consecutive elections where the Democrat couldn't garner the majority of the vote. Oh, you can thank the near 3 million votes(including mine) that went to Ralph Nader for Gore's loss.

2004: Bush-62,040,610(50.7) Kerry-59,028,444(48.3%) Even with an unpopular war going on, Bush still pretty much mopped the floor with Kerry in this election. Even with the Democrats killing themselves registering people didn't help. And it was reported that a good many of the young people signed up through the Rock the Vote campaign voted for Bush.

2008: Obama-69,456,897(52.9%) McCain-59,934,814(45.7%) Wow. 1 election out of 5 where the Democrat garnered a majority of the vote and this wouldn't have happened had there not been a perfect storm of circumstances. Most of which could be laid at the feet of the Democratic Party. Only 1 other time in my lifetime has a Democrat gotten a majority vote and that was Carter in '76 but even that was only 50.1%. However, in that same lifetime, save for '68 and '00, the GOP candidate won by a considerable margin with 3 of those elections being considered landslides. The Dems haven't won a landslide election since Johnson in '64.

So, you're notion that "In 4 of the last 5 Presidential elections the American people wanted the Democrats in the WH" is complete and utter hogwash because anyone with a brain will tell you that in order for that statement to be true, a majority(over 50%) of voters would have to be voting one way or the other and as we see above, that isn't the case.

Odysseus
07-26-2010, 09:41 AM
So what? Fuck those people. If they dont care enough to vote they shouldn't be bitching.
If someone is so ignorant of the issues that they choose to sit out elections, I'd prefer that to the alternative of uninformed people lining up in droves to express their preference for the candidate with the best smile, hottest wife or most fawning media coverage.

I am just saying what the voters wanted.

When the President wins an election , he doesn't cater to the EC you fool.

It matters what the people want.

Unless it goes against what our elites want, in which case the courts will tell us what we want, whether we like it or not.

I notice that you didn't respond to my point above, about Democrats not getting majorities in three out of five elections. NJCARDFAN made the same case, but supplied the numbers and pointed out that Gore also failed to break into the majority, due to the Nader votes. Instead, you keep parroting the same lines. Do you actually read any of the responses to you or are you just here to practice your typing?

NJCardFan
07-26-2010, 09:48 AM
Or the fact that had Perot not run in 1992, Bush 41 would have been elected and there probably would have never been a Clinton presidency.

PoliCon
07-26-2010, 10:43 AM
I was just stating what the American people wanted, thats all.

In how many of those elections did a winner get more than a plurality of the American population? You can't claim that the American people wanted the democrat when less than half of the people voted for him.

PoliCon
07-26-2010, 10:45 AM
So what? Fuck those people. If they dont care enough to vote they shouldn't be bitching.

And if democrats don't have the brains to understand the electoral College - its purpose and its point - then fuck them. They shouldn't be bitching. It's never conservatives calling for the dismemberment of the electoral college - only ever the fucktards on the left. :rolleyes:

enslaved1
07-28-2010, 01:35 AM
the American people gave the Democrats more votes than the Republicans.

In 4 of the last 5 Presidential elections the American people wanted the Democrats in the WH.

Just stating the facts, thats all.

Do you really think the American people will give the GOP the votes this time ? ...of course not.

There is ONE reason the stats are not 5 of the last 5 ...and that reason is 9-11.

Discuss:



I am just saying what the voters wanted.

When the President wins an election , he doesn't cater to the EC you fool.

It matters what the people want.

So which one is it? NJCardfan brought the numbers that the voters didn't want the Democrats in 4 of 5 elections, and I brought the fact that only 1/2 of eligible people vote. Have you some facts, polls, surveys anything saying that enough of that 50% of people who didn't vote wanted the Dims in but were just too lazy/ignorant/stoned to drag their butts to a polling place? Or are you just trying to change your semantics to avoid points you can't defend?

NJCardFan
07-28-2010, 12:46 PM
So which one is it? NJCardfan brought the numbers that the voters didn't want the Democrats in 4 of 5 elections, and I brought the fact that only 1/2 of eligible people vote. Have you some facts, polls, surveys anything saying that enough of that 50% of people who didn't vote wanted the Dims in but were just too lazy/ignorant/stoned to drag their butts to a polling place? Or are you just trying to change your semantics to avoid points you can't defend?

What this idiot doesn't understand is that voting trends are cyclical. The vote tends to swing one way or another. The difference being is that, with the exception of 2000 when the Dem got the popular vote but lost the election, when the GOP wins, it's a overwhelming victory. Nixon in '68 was as close as one can get and Wallace actually took voted from Humphrey. Not to mention that if RFK isn't killed, he wins easily. But '72, 80, 84, 88, and 04, the GOP won rather handily(Bush 41 defeated Dukakis by the same margin that Obama defeated McCain yet no one would exclaim Bush 41's win a landslide yet electorally it was). When Democrats win, it's always a close election with 2008 being the exception. Both 92 and 96, a majority of voters didn't want Clinton but I can understand his being re-elected because, being the objective person I am, he wasn't a bad president on the whole. This is why Gore did so well but Owl couldn't even win his home state. The key is the economy. Whenever the economy goes to shit, no matter which party is in office, that party does not win. '76 was a minor exception because there were more pressing matters that sunk the GOP but Ford still had a good showing in '76 and nearly won. Bush 43 got re-elected based on security. That and the economy was booming at the time. Clinton won because the economy was in flux in '91 and '92 and was re-elected in a booming economy. Had we not had the dotcom boom in the mid 90's and if the GOP ran out a stronger candidate(Alexander from Tenn. and Wilson out of Cali were much better candidates IMO) the election might have turned out differently. This is why the Democrats are facing a defeat this November. I see the GOP gaining a lot of seats. Not enough for a majority but enough to make an impact. In the Senate, however, they just might close the gap enough to where it's fairly even. This will set Obama up for a 2012 problem if the economy doesn't improve. That's what killed Carter and it might kill Obama's 2nd term. If there is a Democratic primary, that will tell whether or not the Dems are in real trouble in 2012.

Molon Labe
07-28-2010, 12:49 PM
If someone is so ignorant of the issues that they choose to sit out elections, I'd prefer that to the alternative of uninformed people lining up in droves to express their preference for the candidate with the best smile, hottest wife or most fawning media coverage.

Um...that's what about 60% of the voting electorate does anyway.

enslaved1
07-29-2010, 01:48 AM
NJCardFan:
There's lots of things Satanticanus doesn't understand, like why he gets made fun of round these parts. Just trying to remind him that it's because he can't (won't) debate his way out of a paper bag.

BTW, might that swing in the votes be aleviated by a genuine third party/independant presence, or do we need to put the Republicans through the fire and skim the dross out? A question worthy of it's own thread, I know, but your stats brought it to mind.