Checked it again and Clinton only bot 43% of the popular vote.Google
"Did Clinton lose the popular vote but win the electoral vote" and read
up on it.=====I guess you have to define what you mean
by "Majority" of the popular vote... or we may be talking
apples-and-oranges.A "Majority" means... over 50%.A
"Plurality" means... you got more votes than another person.But
there are other usages of "majority".Many Presidents
didn't get a "Majority"1844 -James K. Polk (D) 49.3%
1848 -Zachary Taylor (Whig) 47.3% 1856 -James Buchanan (D) 45.3% 1860 -Abraham Lincoln (R) 39.9% 1876 -Rutherford B. Hayes (R) 47.9% 1880 -James A. Garfield (R) 48.3% 1884 -Grover Cleveland (D) 48.8% 1892 -Grover Cleveland (D) 46.0% 1912 -Woodrow Wilson (D) 41.8% 1916 -Woodrow Wilson (D) 49.3% 1948 -Harry S. Truman (D) 49.5% 1960 -John F. Kennedy (D) 49.7% 1968 -Richard M. Nixon (R) 43.4% 1992 -William J. Clinton (D) 43.0% 1996 -William J. Clinton (D) 49.0%
Plus the 4 who won electoral college but not the popular vote (which
@ 2 bits, you state that Clinton received 47% of the vote and Bush and Perot
collectively received 56% of the vote. That is AMAZING! Let me do the math.
47 + 56 = 103. Now how did that work? Maybe it was the same Republicans then
as those who counted Florida in 2000. And some think Putin can manipulate the
vote. The GOP has Putin beat!
I disagree with Gerson often, but here he is correct, a rational voice directed
to an irrational Republican Party. Wait until the DesNews prints Gerson's
piece that the Washington Post entitled "Stop the Iraqi blame game."
But then, maybe we won't see it on these pages because it deviates from the
Roger Ailes messaging.
@SG in SLCYou nailed it and certain conservative contributors have trouble
with the math. The scenario is not pretty for the GOP or the Tea Party. Either
they adapt and compromise or they'll permanently become the party of
GWH Bush and Perot got 56% of the popular vote in '92? Impressive.
How'd Bush's second term come out?
Let's take a break from politics. It's summer. And I'm going to
stop in great falls tomorrow and get a bunch of fireworks. We can worry about
all this stuff in a couple years.
The truth,Popular voting results are obviously a pretty good
indicator of overall voter sentiment, but Electoral College results are, too, so
if you want to talk electoral math instead, we can do that.There are
538 electoral votes, and 270 are required to win.Traditionally
"red" states – carried by the Republicans in the last four
presidential elections (TX, GA, AZ, TN, MO, AL, SC, LA, KY, OK, UT, KS, AR, MS,
NE, WV, ID, AK, MT, WY, ND, & SD) – total 180 electoral votes.Traditionally "blue" states – carried by the Democrats in
the last four presidential elections (CA, NY, IL, PA, MI, NJ, WA, MA, MN, WI,
MD, OR, CT, HI, RI, ME, DC, DE, & VT) – total 242 electoral votes.The remaining "swing" states (FL, OH, NC, VA, IN, CO, NV, IA,
NM, & NH) total 116 electoral votes. Assuming the red and blue states
follow the trend (not certain, but probable), if Florida (huge Hispanic
population; immigration issues paramount) swings Democrat, that’s the
ballgame. If Ohio and Indiana (Rust Belt states; labor issues paramount) swing
Democrat, that’s the ballgame In short, if any 28 swing state electoral
votes go Democrat, that’s the ballgame.
Our system of government is NOT based on popular vote.We are NOT a
democracy.We are a representative republic, no matter how much the
left wants to change that (and change it for the worse I might add) These popular vote arguments are silly and childish. Not unexpected from the
mentality of the left.We are better than that.
2 bits -Yes Bush won the election. He did not win the majority of
the popular vote though. Gore did.But GW did win the election.
Thanks to the Conservative-infested US Supreme Court.. . . And GW
confidently went on to take Clinton's successes and DESTROY them all.Such is the nature of Republican leadership.
2 bits,You're playing semantics games.I'm
pretty sure FT meant that Bill Clinton won a *plurality* of the popular votes in
1992 -- he received the most votes of any presidential candidate in that
election. George W. Bush in the 2000 election, not so much. The Supreme Court
ruled that Florida's electoral votes were awarded to Bush (arguably rightly
so), and so, yes, he was (again, arguably) legitimately elected President. I
think you are missing the point, though. Republican presidential candidates
undisputably have NOT received the most popular votes in 5 of the last 6
presidential elections. No, that does not negate George W. Bush's two
terms, but it does indicate a trend, and given that the candidate who wins the
aggregate popular vote virtually always wins the aggregate electoral vote, it
also says something about the odds of the Republicans winning back the
presidency, barring a change in the trend.
@FT,I'm wondering... do you think Bush won by some miracle butterfly
ballot BOTH times?The fact is... he won both times. And that's
pretty much all that matters.=====As far as Bill Clinton
not getting a majority of the popular vote... In 1992 he got 47% of the popular
vote (that's not a "majority"). George Bush and Ross
Perot got 56% of the popular vote. Which is why some say George Bush WOULD have
won IF Perot hadn't split the Republican vote.But bottom
line... it doesn't matter what MIGHT have happened, or what you think
SHOULD have happened (including thinking Bush didn't really win). The
winner is the winner, and that's all.Thinking to this day that
Bush didn't really win... is a lot like the birthers who still think Obama
is a foreigner (Bush won, Obama IS a citizen)!We will see if GOP
never wins WH again. Your first comment made it sound like GOP hadn't won
the WH in a long time (hint... it hasn't been that long). And that they
may never win again (All American history indicates one-party-rule forever...
will NOT happen).
@2 bitsI never wrote Bush was not President and I came to grips with it on
day one. I just stated the fact that he did not win the popular vote in his
first term. More Americans wanted Gore than Bush. That's a fact. There
has only been 2 Presidents win the office without winning the popular vote.
It's ludicrous to think a GOP candidate can duplicate Bush and the miracles
of the butterfly ballot and the supreme court again. As far as Bill
Clinton's election, he did win the popular vote and the electoral college
so that would make him legitimate. Once again, the candidate with the most
votes usually wins (usually).My post was to call out that Gerson is
correct and conservatives need to come to grips with the demographic facts of
America in 2014 if they want to win a national election. If conservatives want
to stay in denial they'll also stay out of the WH.
@2BitsI wouldn't say that Bush was illegitimate(I do find it ironic
that in this case the SCOTUS making a decision is OK, but when you don't
agree, like with the ACA, it's activist judges). But it is still true that
over the last 5 presidential elections Bush v Kerry in 04 was the only time the
GOP won the popular vote in a presidential election. And they did that because
GWB and Kerry were almost dead even in the Latino vote. If republicans want to
maintain their, homophobic, xenophobic, gynophobic positions they will continue
to loose votes. The realities of the demographics of the United States no longer
mesh well with their strategies. Sure the Tea Party can pick up seats in Utah
and the south but they will never win national elections without changing their
policies on certain issues.
@FT,People who still insist Bush lost the election... are just as
lame as the people who still insist Obama wasn't born in America. #1. It's over and decided now! #2. Bush WAS elected
(not once, but twice). You need to eventually come to grips with that fact.
Likewise the birthers must eventually come to grips with the FACT that their
issue was decided. The court decided (both cases). The courts
would not have allowed Obama to become President if he wasn't actually born
in the USA. And Bush wouldn't have become President (not once, but twice)
if he actually lost the election. That's over, done, decided, history.
Fact is.. Bush was President 6 years ago (no matter how deep you put
your head in the partisan sand).If you don't believe me...
google "List of Presidents". See who was President 6 years ago.
It's a fact now (not disputed).===MOST Americans
aren't partisan enough to accept one-party-rule forever.====BTW... popular vote doesn't decide who wins. Clinton became
president without winning the majority of the popular vote.. is he illegitimate
The GOP has admitted that it doesn't care about national elections. It only
wants to control districts. They feel like they can obstruct the president all
@2 bitIt's a fact that the GOP has lost the popular vote in 5 out of
the 6 last elections. Bush may not have ever become President or won
re-election if not for a "butterfly ballot" and a partisan supreme
court. It's a fact that the white male vote continues to decline
and that has been the back bone of the GOP for the past 30 years. The GOP will
have to attract more minorities and woman and hold their support among white
males. If you think their current policies will do that then you may been
sitting next to Dick Morris and Karl Rove on election night in 2012.
Yes, the tea party is out of control and cannot govern.
@FT,Gerson is right. Your analysis... not so much.You
talk like the GOP continually loses the WH... Let's fact-check that.
Remember who was in the WH just 6 years ago? That's far from a trend.
America switches the party in the WH every 4-8 years (it usually takes 8 years).
Google it... Not much has changed since Bush was President. The
GOP will win again someday (Democrats becoming assuming they will win the WH
forever more).... is the recipe for failure. When you make that
assumption... you will lose the WH. Democrats and Republicans have been guilty
of this in the past, and every time it results in you getting replaced by the
other party.Why would all history come to an end now... and the USA
turn to one-party-rule? Google it.. history shows we don't stay with
one-party forever.And the Tea Party doesn't win any elections.
They aren't a party (like GOP or DNC). They don't have their own
candidates with a T by their name... they want to influence all candidates (both
Gerson nails it. Bottom line, the GOP can't win a national election
without additional support from women and minorities. They continue to drive
both away with their policies and positions. There are not enough white males
and right wing, religous radicals to win a national election. Either they start
compromising and working with others or they'll continue to lose the WH.
Does the Tea Party want to win elections or primaries?